Review Summary
Our Take

The Aeon CLR possesses all the required refinements for accurate image fidelity in the growing ultra short throw projection market, and does so at an exceptionally affordable price.

  • Innovative, multi-layer advanced optical filtering effectively absorbs 95% of overhead ambient light, preventing screen washout in lifestyle lighting conditions.
  • Provides highly accurate measured and observable performance.
  • Premium technology competitively priced with conventional projection screens.
  • Screen material compactly rolls into a small diameter for easy shipping and handling.
  • Not a complete panacea to all ambient light conditions.
  • Layered surface technology more prone to incidental damage than conventional screen materials.

Garden Grove, CA-based Elite Screens maintains a presence in the global projection screen market with product design targeting cinema-quality performance at enthusiast-friendly pricing. On the other hand, Elite ProAV, their companion division for the commercial market, focuses on leading-edge engineering that's less tethered to cost constraints. But the company believes in sharing the wealth inter-divisionally, which has enabled their serriform optical filter surface lens microstructure technology to find its way down into the Aeon CLR (Ceiling Light Rejecting) series of screens designed for the growing segment of ultra short throw (UST) projectors.

UST projectors gained prominence as a consumer category nearly a dozen years ago almost exclusively in the Pacific Rim, where space limitations make traditional home theater projection a challenge. Here in the U.S., the most popular application for UST projectors these days is classroom and institutional use, though a number of 4K models geared specifically for the home theater segment have reached market or are expected to this year. Hisense, with its Laser TV series, has led the home UST charge, but LG recently joined the fray, and Optoma, ViewSonic, and start-up VAVA are all slated to release their own 4K UST entertainment centers this year that include on-board audio and internet streaming. Merely add a screen of 100- or 120-inches diagonal to these models, and you're good to go.

This is where ambient-light rejecting (ALR) UST screens come in. As with any two-piece projection arrangement, contending with ambient light is paramount, but especially so if you intend to use said projector as a replacement for your day-to-day TV. Ultra short throw doesn't necessarily present intrinsic issues with ambient light compared to a machine parked across the room—both fall prey to any stray lumens coming from a source other than the projector. However, there are different types of screens to manage each application.

A classic long-throw, ceiling-mounted projector relies on the screen to reflect light at an incident angle, much like the way a billiard ball banks off a table bumper in a direction opposite the angle of approach. But, that's not what you want for a UST projector/screen combination. With a UST projector resting on a counter, light rises vertically toward the screen at a steeply pronounced angle, but should ideally be sharply re-directed to the viewing position and not incidentally shower the ceiling. (I have also heard of installations where a UST projector has been ceiling mounted and the screen flipped to allow the image to be correctly steered at the viewing position. For this alternative application, care is required to ensure no overhead ambient light is present during viewing, as the screen can't distinguish between that and the intended projection light.)

The above diagram, and cross-section below, illustrate how the sawtooth-like optical structure of the StarBright CLR material absorbs overhead light into the screen but reflects UST light from below back to viewers.


Elite's Aeon CLR design positions microscopic optical filters to "steer" projected light in an optimal path aimed at the viewer, yet the positional "pitch" of these filters also thwarts light from above (when in the more common countertop placement) to keep it from washing out the image. Magical engineering of this sort requires quite a research facility. My yet to be answered question: Does the address contain the name Hogwarts?

Construction & Set Up

The Aeon CLR comes in 90-, 100-, and 120-inch diagonal sizes with a fixed, fine-bezel frame. Electric motorized versions utilizing the same StarBright CLR material are on the way in both standard wall/ceiling and floor-rising models. My 100-inch sample, with a street price of $1,249, arrived in a rather compact (compared to most other screens I've taken into my lab), Fed-Ex shippable box. The StarBright material is stiffer than traditional vinyl or woven screens but remains pliable enough in the 100-inch size to be rolled into a relatively small 4- to 5-inch diameter. As readers may know, some manufacturers' ALR screen materials are of a thickness and rigidity requiring them to be packaged and shipped fully assembled. Elite's rollable material eliminates the possibility that a pre-assembled screen may not navigate tight quarters en route to the destination wall.

The supplied instructions are sufficiently detailed, though it is strongly suggested to have a helper; four hands are more effective for the spring-tensioned assembly. Additionally, a video on the Elite Screens website illustrates the construction in precise, step-by-step fashion. Having assembled dozens of screens in my years, I took a deep breath and proceeded, undaunted.

All pieces and sub-components are safely and logically packed, and everything necessary to construct and affix the screen to a wall are included, even a rubber mallet and Phillips screwdriver. The sub-frame consists of solid, extruded aluminum that accepts joining brackets at each corner and at the center of the longer top and bottom two-piece spans. Screws hold everything in place.

Undoctored photo of the Aeon CLR with an image from the Epson LS100 in natural light.

Once the sub-frame is assembled, the screen material is laid out with the reflective surface facing down, and the sub-frame is positioned equidistant from all four sides to begin the process of utilizing tensioning springs to affix screen to frame, in loop and grommet fashion. Elite provides two pairs of gloves plus a large section of fabric to place on the floor, enabling a clean environment on which to work while preventing damage to the delicate screen material. The screen is clearly marked to directionally identify the top, which is absolutely critical for correct performance. (In the event of a ceiling-mounted UST projector, the screen would obviously be flipped.) Although all screen materials should be treated gently whether off or on the wall, it should be noted that the microstructures in a screen like this are more sensitive than traditional materials to rough handling or anything that might scrape the surface, so care should be taken.

You attach the tensioning springs to the frame while using a supplied "hook-shaped" tool to pull and guide each spring to an associating grommet. Having a second pair of hands speeds the job and allows the screen to be pulled from opposite sides for easier centering in the frame, though I effectively managed it alone. Upon completion, the screen was taut, wrinkle free, and with the frame precisely centered within the material. When that process is finished, the sub-frame is covered with black, 0.5-inch bezel trim pieces, joined in similar fashion as the frame. This shrouds the screen's outer perimeter, with the resulting look akin to a large flat-panel television.

An LED backlight kit is included as a standard accessory. While carefully calibrated backlights are found in nearly every grading suite throughout Hollywood, practically speaking, projection screen-sized images coupled with consumer light output levels negate the need for a backlight, though it may provide a pleasing atmospheric effect. I chose not to install the backlight on my review sample.

Elite Aeon CLR Performance

I evaluated the Aeon CLR with a combination of measurements and subjective viewing, in both darkness and with controlled ambient light arranged to test the screen's repulsion of light from different directions. The kind folks at Epson supplied a sample of their Home Cinema LS100 ultra short throw laser projector, a 1080p model but one adapted for home environments, for the evaluations. For UST systems, the projector typically sets upon or inside a unit of furniture, and screen placement is profoundly limited by the projector's throw ratio, lens focal length, and vertical offset. Epson provides very detailed information to ensure the screen lands correctly and, after verifying my math, I had the Aeon CLR perfectly situated.

This composite image from two undoctored photos shows a direct comparison of the same UST image in the same lighting conditions on a matte white screen (left) and the Aeon CLR.

Aeon's StarBright CLR material is crafted to primarily reject—or more appropriately, absorb—ninety five percent of light emanating from sources positioned above the screen. Another Elite product I reviewed previously, the ISF-certified Prime Vision DarkStar 9, is designed to reject ambient light from any non-perpendicular direction. But with StarBright CLR it's expected that projected light will originate from below and the angular positioning of the optical lens structure redirects that light toward the viewer. By default, some ambient light coming from sources to the immediate right or left of the screen will also be absorbed, but be cautioned this is not license for an "anything goes" illuminated environment.

Measurements. Elite specifies Aeon as having a 180-degree viewing angle partnered with a contrast enhancement 100 times that of standard matte white screens. A minimal, 0.6 screen gain aids in Starbright's light-rejection properties. Measurements taken for the Aeon CLR in a dark room, using a full-frame white test pattern from the calibrated LS100, showed near-perfect color uniformity across the nine points I measured on an imaginary tic-tac-toe grid. However, brightness uniformity at these same nine measurement points revealed significant point-to-point variability. Maximum light output was 30.8 foot-Lamberts (ft-L) at screen center as measured by a Minolta CS-200 colorimeter (perpendicular to all points, not angled and aimed), but the light fall-off at the screen corners was approximately 10 to 12 ft-L. (You can find a full reporting of measurements in the appendix attached to this review.)

I eventually isolated this drop-off to the projector (and perhaps the general nature of UST projection) rather than the screen with additional tests in which I also measured the Epson UST projected onto an available matte white, 1.0 reference-quality screen.

Not surprisingly, the vertical center-of-screen measurements (top, middle and bottom) revealed a large disparity between the UST screen and this more conventional screen material. On the matte white screen, the point closest to the lens—that is, the center-bottom measurement—was 44.5 ft-L, with prominent "hot spotting" visible at that measurement point. Moving up to screen center, the light dropped to 26.8 ftL, and at center-top, it measured 18.5 ftL, clearly demonstrating that the projector itself was tapering off the brightness as the projected light "laddered" up the screen. The farther the light travelled from the lens, the less it was reflected back at the viewer and otherwise caromed off the screen and onto the ceiling. The corner measurements also fell off from that brightest measurement in a manner that closely paralleled (percentage wise) what I saw with the Epson on the Aeon CLR.

Interestingly, the data differed considerably on the Aeon CLR, where the screen center was brightest and the top and bottom feathered off 17 and 20 percent, respectively.

I then continued my experiment by trying the Aeon CLR with a traditional long-throw projector situated across the room, a 3-chip DLP known for capable light output with excellent uniformity. As the full-white field test pattern came up, the Aeon CLR's light absorbing properties quickly exhibited their prowess. With the projected light source now coming from across the room rather than from down below, the light output from the screen was markedly suppressed. Perceptually, however, the brightness uniformity across the screen was immediately impressive and detectable.

Measurements revealed that in this arrangement, the Aeon CLR showed just 6.91 ft-L at its brightest spot at center screen, but varied only to a minimum of 6.24 ft-L at its lowest reading at the right top corner. All nine points were between those two extremes. The modest extra brightness at the center is consistent with the variation you'd get with any good front projection system on a uniform matte white screen. Furthermore, a brightness PLUGE pattern, though dim, showed all steps as anticipated, indicating to me that the Aeon CLR does not restrict contrast.

The end result of this testing, then, demonstrates that the screen delivers its light reduction (and transmission) consistently across its surface, and is free from any anomalies that might otherwise be inferred in the measurements section. Any inconsistencies can be attributed to the projection source, and most likely to the design tradeoffs inherent in UST projectors.

Viewing Tests. With the LS100 and Aeon CLR properly reunited and the projector setting 26 inches away from the 87-inch wide screen, I settled in for subjective viewing. I amassed my initial hours sampling broadcast television, streamed from Hulu via an Apple TV. Epson's Home Cinema LS100 has been previously reviewed by ProjectorCentral, so no need to elaborate on specifics.

An undoctored image from a 50-inch TV and 100-inch Aeon CLR mated with an Epson LS100 in ambient light.

In the context of equating the Aeon CLR / LS100 combo to a sizeable LCD or OLED panel, in casual viewing I found the pairing produced a seductively large, copiously vibrant, and detailed image that could convince you to repurpose your flat-panel to a secondary location in exchange for a few additional square feet of visual bliss. The Aeon CLR held its own quite solidly through varying degrees of daytime viewing, or while artificial light prevailed. Instances with drapes open and the slats of horizontal blinds diffusing light in the direction of the ceiling (but not directly upon the screen surface) somewhat limited contrast as expected, with black portions of the image floating up to dark gray. As previously mentioned, Aeon CLR will redirect light from below the screen toward the viewing position, but not absorb or diffuse it. Light sourced from above the screen is absorbed. On the other hand, any ambient light coming in from the same horizontal plane as the screen—that is, left or right of it—will arm wrestle the light coming from the projector for prominence. However, unlike the shiny surfaces of many flat-panel screens, no semblance of mirror-like reflectivity was visible, and images punched through with an appealing vividness.

Viewing the Formula 1 Canadian Grand Prix auto race, for example, I found the colors of the various teams' liveries practically leaping off the screen under a brilliant Montreal sky. Equally so with the Stanley Cup finals, as the royal blue of the hometown St. Louis Blues was emblazoned on the Aeon CLR in stark contrast to the Boston Bruins' white, black and gold. I was left with little doubt that, for sports-related programming in either natural sunlight or brightly lit arenas and stadiums, the Aeon CLR delivers an addicting, glare-free, giant-sized image (when ambient light is appropriately addressed). I was drawn into well-illuminated media, and aside from the occasional chromatic artifact that I easily attributed to the Epson's laser light engine, I saw nothing that distracted from the engaging image.

News-oriented programming also presented well; graphics were finely etched and easily read, while skin tones of anchors and panel guests were nicely rendered. Traditional serials were also well revealed by the Aeon CLR/Epson partnership. One show I inexplicably yet faithfully watch, Young Sheldon, appeared to lack nothing out of the ordinary, save perhaps Sheldon's normally lustrous jet-black hair seeming a tad less inky in comparison to my day-to-day OLED display.

So, as a means of delivering sports, news, and passively consumed broadcasting, I found the Aeon CLR to be free of faults, and with an ever-increasing number of UST projectors being introduced for home use, it provides affordable accessibility to a high performance, competitively priced, oversized screen.

Turning to motion picture fare in an elevated-light environment, the Aeon CLR/Epson duo was a bit less satisfying. Detail and color rendition remained exceptional, but the challenges associated with a bright, 4000 lumen laser projector with less than state-of-the-art contrast/black level performance proved limiting. The timeless axiom about what happens when you task a projector to battle daylight was quickly reinforced—an ALR screen like the Aeon CLR can be of immense help in restoring contrast, but there's only so much it can do. As Joel Silver, president and founder of the Imaging Science Foundation, often recounts: "You can't out-gun the sun!"

On a bright, Saturday morning with grandkids visiting, Mary Poppins Returns streamed via iTunes gave me a good feel for the combo's strengths and limitations. Contrast was challenged for some indoor scenes prior to Mary's arrival, or should it be said, re-arrival, as were drab outdoor scenes of overcast London. However, once the movie was in full stride as live-action combined with animation, colors of all hues popped in a captivating manner. Animated costumes in these scenes are amply saturated and the system delivers this to the viewer, with the Aeon CLR's solid color uniformity showing no perceptible signs of color shift as the pastels swirled about the screen. Within the story's "real world" (as opposed to its fantasy sequences), colors remained fully flush without appearing "cartoony," especially the myriad outfits adorned by young and old. The sole demerit was derived from a lack of discernable detail in shadow-laden scenes, though the contrast did improve with ambient light removed. Still, the black level performance delivered by the Epson UST and Elite Aeon pairing was not on par with previous Epson front projectors I have viewed with the Elite Prime Vision DarkStar 9 (including both lamp-based projectors and their first-generation laser, the LS10000).

For some dark room viewing, I turned to HULU and The Looming Tower, the excellent adaptation of Lawrence Wright's identically titled book depicting how the rivalry and inter-agency conflict between the CIA and FBI may have unwittingly contributed to the disastrous success of the attacks on 9/11 (you may arrive at a firmer conclusion should you indulge in the mini-series). I binge-watched the series over the span of a few nights, during which it provided a nice range of content to test the duo's mettle, from bright, outdoor urban scenes to nighttime challenges and a variety of interiors.

I felt the Epson and Elite partnership did its best to cement me into the highly compelling content, though it wasn't immediately apparent how the penalty of less-than-best contrast from the projector affected my connection and ability to be drawn into the story. I suppose I could say the Epson LS100/Aeon CLR duo did what was asked of it, as The Looming Tower had me contemplating quite a few days after if a similar event could be repeated or if the necessary safeguards are fully in place. Nonetheless, the cost of the projector's weakness to my immersion became more readily apparent when I replayed some of the tensest and dramatic moments on my usual reference projection system.

Bottom line: the Epson LS100, and I suspect other UST projectors geared for home use, favors high light output while forfeiting the black level and contrast so deeply sought by hardcore cinephiles. That's not an unreasonable approach for the intended use-case, but prospective buyers should know that a UST projector/UST screen combo, even with an excellent and verified uniform screen like the Aeon CLR, may not fully rise to the enthusiast challenge, even while performing its day-to-day, bright room viewing duties quite impressively.


While any screen review by necessity must report on a "system" comprised of two independent products, my comparisons with a reference matte screen and a reference projector reliably confirmed for me that the Elite Aeon CLR was issue-free—which is about all you can expect a great screen to be. It is quite capable of achieving a level of cinematic aplomb, even for critical viewers, courtesy of excellent brightness and color uniformity, and an ability to ward away softer, meandering light. If you're disappointed, it'll likely be because the projector isn't up to the task, or you're asking it to reject light that is either unreasonably bright or coming from a direction that the Aeon CLR is not designed to reject.

The takeaway, I believe, is that success with a UST projection system for demanding videophiles will depend largely upon the projector employed, along with reasonable expectations. But if you can find a projector good enough (and perhaps we'll find one in the new generation of USTs coming to market), you can count on the fact that Elite's magicians have developed a neutral reflective surface which can deliver a precisely accurate image when given an equally capable light source. And at a very affordable cost, at that. I am unaware of a competing screen implementing filtering technology available for a price remotely near that of Elite Screens' Aeon CLR, making this not only a great value, but also an easy recommendation for any UST system.

Elite Screen Aeon CLR Measurements

Measurements for color and brightness uniformity were taken at 9 points across the screen, with the meter always perpendicular to the screen. A crosshatch pattern was used to line up to the desired measurement point, followed by a full field, 100% White pattern for the measurement. This assures repeatability as well as consistency across the screen.

Color accuracy for the Elite was measured by assessing how close the white point/color temperature in each sector of the screen came to the D65 reference used by mastering studios. That point is defined on a CIE color chart by the x-axis position at 0.3127 and the y-axis position of 0.3290. Measurements taken for the Aeon CLR after calibrating the LS100 showed a maximum color uniformity error for the x axis of 0.004 across the screen (from 0.313 at Center Top to 0.309 at Left Bottom and Right Bottom. For the y axis, the maximum error was 0.003, with the Top Left at 0.330 and the Bottom Right at 0.327. These are considered well below the "Just Noticeable Difference" level for an observer described as "trained" (compared to a casual observer).

Brightness uniformity was not nearly as tight across multiple points of the screen. At Center, the Aeon CLR measured its maximum brightness of 30.8 ft-L, and it dipped by 11.8 ft-L to the least-bright measurement of 18.9 ft, taken at the bottom-left. As described in the review, these deltas were likely attributable to the steep angle of the projected light and possibly the projector rather than any inconsistency in the screen surface. See the review for more detail.

Elite Screens Aeon CLR Brightness Uniformity

Elite Aeon CLR/
Epson LS100
Elite Aeon CLR/
Long-Throw Projector
Matte White Screen/
Epson LS100
Top-Left 19.64 6.24 11.40
Top-Center 25.09 6.40 18.54
Top-Right 20.67 6.29 12.13
Middle-Left 24.69 6.51 16.64
Middle-Center 30.78 6.91 26.84
Middle-Right 25.12 6.54 17.38
Bottom-Left 18.96 6.28 12.77
Bottom-Center 24.93 6.43 44.56
Bottom-Right 20.21 6.26 13.82

Elite Screens Aeon CLR Color Uniformity
(with Epson LS100)

x axis (x target: 0.313) y axis (y target: 0.329)
Top-Left 0.310 0.330
Top-Center 0.313 0.329
Top-Right 0.311 0.329
Middle-Left 0.309 0.328
Middle-Center 0.312 0.329
Middle-Right 0.309 0.329
Bottom-Left 0.309 0.328
Bottom-Center 0.312 0.328
Bottom-Right 0.309 0.328

Buy a Screen

Projector Central has a list of screen dealers that we work with that can answer your questions and sell you a screen at a great price.

Comments (40) Post a Comment
Michael C. Posted Aug 29, 2019 2:50 AM PST
Something seems a little off on the brightness measurements. Based on the review, it looks like you had a 103” diagonal 16:9 screen. Using Projector Central’s throw calculator, the on screen brightness should have been 72- 88ftL. Even on the Matte white screen (assuming a gain of 1.0) you were only getting a maximum of approximately 45 FTL, with a maximum of 30ftL on the UST screen. Can you provide the settings used for the LS100, the measured Lumen output, and possibly a reason for the low light ftL seen in your measurements? The laser light source shouldn’t be that dim for thousands of hours. I am considering using the 120” Aeon CLR with the Optoma P1. This combo has a lower light output projector onto a larger screen, and my worries are that the brightness will not be sufficient even in a dark room. Based on my calculations, I would only get 55% of the values that you measured here. This would put my light from screen at the max point at 17ftL
Michael C. Posted Aug 29, 2019 3:07 AM PST
Added question. The LS100 has a throw ratio of 0.37 in telephoto mode, which puts it outside the recommended range of 0.3 Max for the CLR material. Can you provide any further info on the throw ratio you had in your setup?
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Aug 29, 2019 3:10 AM PST
Michael, these measurements were taken with a fully calibrated projector for dark room viewing, which means that one of the less bright/more accurate modes was selected to begin with. Our calculator is based on the rated output of the projector in most cases. No one should expect to use the very brightest preset viewing mode for any projector as this is usually leaning too green or blue.
Jason Posted Aug 29, 2019 3:25 AM PST
$1250 is low cost? :/
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Aug 29, 2019 7:38 AM PST
Indeed it is for this type of screen, Jason. This is much more than a gray screen that boosts up the black at the expense of white brightness. A dedicated UST screen of this size withALR technology of this sophistication costs thousands of dollars from some competitors.
David Rivera Posted Aug 29, 2019 10:49 AM PST
Fantastic detailed analysis with highly applicable measured data, thank you Michael. I am indeed considering purchasing a new 4k laser UST projector (likely the OptomaX P1). Elite Screen's Aeon CLR Starbright was one of only two screens I had my eye on to pair with the UST projector. Your review just sealed my choice for the Screen. I'm now waiting on the upcoming September 15th scheduled release of the Optoma P1, and subsequent reviews by trusted sources to make my final decision on the UST projector. I am hopeful that Rob will request a sample from Optoma to be reviewed by one of Projector Central highly experienced contributors.

Thanks again Michael, and thank you Rob for your excellent leadership.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Aug 29, 2019 10:50 AM PST
Thanks for you comments, David. We have a review pending now of the LG UST and will be most certainly looking at the P1, which has looked promising in the early show demos.
Michael C Posted Aug 29, 2019 2:09 PM PST
Robin, maybe it’s the engineer in me, but now I am totally confused. In my calculations, I used the Projector Central estimate based off of what I thought were optimized settings for the LS100. What are the Projector Central numbers if not that? Also, Tim Adams on July 10, 2019, in a paper on this site said that we should shoot for 30-60 ftL or higher in rooms with ambient light. Why would an evaluation of an ALR screen not be done using projector settings for ambient light conditions? If you have a fully dark room, you really don’t need an ALR screen (though in this case, it does seem to help with hot spotting).

Can you provide any more information about the calibrated LS100 projector’s output to help clarify things for me? Back calculating from the output measurements, I get less than 1000 lumens. That’s below anything that was measured in the review of the LS100.

My room has 100-300 lux of indirect light near the screen I currently have. Should I be concerned with sub-30 ftL calculated performance in those conditions (I am shooting for 40fLt based on based on what I get off of my current ES Cinegrey 3D ALR screen)?

Thanks much for any advice. I throughly read and appreciate all the articles posted here.
IPD Posted Aug 29, 2019 2:39 PM PST
Cost is what has turned me off of Screen Innovations, Da-Lite and HiSense. Last I checked, Silver Ticket, Aeon, Elite and Viewsonic all were missing a 110" offering for a UST ALR screen.

For the love of all that's holy, would one of you fine people do a review on XY UST screens--both the PET Grid and PET Crystal versions? Thanks!
Brian Gluck Posted Aug 30, 2019 5:13 AM PST
Jason, For an ALR screen that is designed to work specifically with UST projectors, this is in fact low cost. It's actually lower cost than most legit, traditional white 4K+ screens made for standard throw projection and much lower cost than 4k+ ALR surfaces. Elite Screens products are value value-centric and while this may not be the best performing (or built) UST ALR screen available, it is certainly has a strong value proposition.
Ben Posted Sep 2, 2019 6:09 AM PST
I'll quote what 'IPD' said:

"For the love of all that's holy, would one of you fine people do a review on XY UST screens, both the PET Grid and PET Crystal versions?"

I second this, this is the brand all the people seeking out the UST branch is looking at, it's cost effective and offers all the customization you need for a screen.

I have contacted over 5 companies asking for a 2.39:1 UST screen and everyone says no except XY Screens.

We need to have this screen put to the tests, they are worth to have their products promoted, please put these screens side by side with other brands and let us all know how each and every screen perform.

PET Crystal comes in two versions, 0.8 and 0.95 gain, PET Grid is just one version.

The 0.8 offers better blacks and is their big seller.

Thsnk you for recognizing their products and making a review of them.

Rob, Sabin, will you consider this?
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Sep 2, 2019 10:47 AM PST
Ben, I wasn't very familiar with XY Screens until recently, and while I appreciate that they appear to be an established and respected Chinese screen manufacturer who may be producing some high value screen materials, I stop short of putting our reviewing resources against products that do not appear to have an obvious and trustworthy distribution platform for the North American market. XY Screens website says they are an OEM (orignal equipment manufacturer) and ODM (original design manufacturer) for other brands, and it would not surprise me to learn that they supply product sold under names we do in fact review. But at this time, their screens do not seem to appear on Amazon U.S. and I've only been able to find any retail mechanism for their products via the Chinese e-tailer Alibaba. If they get picked up under their own name by an established retailer or distributor in the U.S., we'll consider investigating their products further.
Ben Posted Sep 2, 2019 11:51 AM PST
Rob, that's so sad to hear.

The world does not revolve around America, all countries contribute to what we can purchase as end-consumers on the market.

Given the fact that China is most likely the biggest producer here in our world, among with your statement and suspiciousness regarding their materials beinv sold by 3rd party resellers, I take your approach to this question rather half-willingly.

I'm from Sweden and my grammar is not impecable but I hope you can read between the lines and that my message comes across.

I think the best you can do for all of us but mostly your website, is to review the stuff we all buy and admire.

At the end of the day, no one will buy an American brand if another company can offer similiar performance for half the price from China.

Projectors alone brakes peoples banks with UST, right now the hot spot for screens is XY Screen, whether we like it or not.

Please reconsider, at least order a sample from them for USD $45 for starters, build some expectations and develop a feel around them, throw them an emaik and offer them a review, they would absolutely love that oppourtunity.

We all would.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Sep 2, 2019 1:27 PM PST
Ben, thank you for your comment. I appreciate that we have a worldwide audience and that our reviews and projector database and calculator tools are used around the globe, and I mean no disrespect to our foreign readers with such a policy. However, the vast majority of our audience are North America-based, and what you might deem as a consumer-unfriendly practice that denies readers access to reviews of a product you feel is of high quality and is of high demand elsewhere is actually the opposite, and is designed to both protect our readers and to help us make the best use of our limited reviewing time and financial resources. When we publish a positive review of a product the majority of our audience cannot simply go out and purchase from a reputable online or brick-and-mortar retailer, all we do is create excitement for something readers can't get (or can't get easily or without risk) and delay or eliminate a review of another readily available product that may also be valuable but which we no longer have the budget or time to get to. We perhaps even expose or encourage readers to purchase that product from less scrupulous channels, or those from whom a damaged or unsatisfactory product cannot be easily returned. It is for this reason that we also pass on reviewing some products while they are in their crowdfunding phase from companies that are encouraging folks to pay up front for products that don't yet exist, or are only being shipped in limited quantities to fulfill those upfront orders. It's not our job as a consumer-advocacy website to create demand for start-up companies to help them raise money for products that don't exist or can't yet be readily purchased.

XY Screens does not even appear to have their own direct-sales online store on their website for consumer purchases, much less availability of their products at Amazon, the world's leading online retailer. I never say never and will continue to learn what I can about the brand. But until such time that they have established a beachhead for distribution to the majority of our audience, it won't be of interest to us. I'll add that nothing is preventing you or any of our other readers anywhere in the world from pursuing the $45 kit you mentioned--if they can figure out where to buy it--and purchasing any of their screens on their own and without waiting for ProjectorCentral's stamp of approval. But allowing you to share your own obviously promotional comments with the rest of our audience is about as far as we are willing to go at this point.
Ben Posted Sep 2, 2019 5:46 PM PST
I don't know what to say to you, I think you're making this uneccessary complicated. To buy their products just contact them, they have a website like any other company, all companies cannot be like Amazon and offer 1-day shipping, Amazon run their staff to its knees. You are too much of a western, just because it's a China-based company does not make it a scam company. You sound like you never dared to buy anything from overseas, I can tell you that I have bought things from all over the world, Russia, Hong Kong, Korea, etc, never had a single issue. These companies based more remotely offer nothing but credit card or PayPal payment methods simply because they cannot meet your western bank policies or wire tranfers easily, there is a language barrier and the above mentioned payment methods are fast, easy and reliable. It's not like they can offer you an invoice to be paid after delivery, that's impossible outside any national border.

To tell you the truth, I've had far more trouble with products shipped from my own country, including Amazon, than products bought from where you otherwise seem to keep at a distance. I'm telling you, we're blinded by our own western world. There is nothing hard by performing an RMA process or file a complaint and have it corrected just because the company is overseas, they care about their company and reputation just as much as your average Joe selling bicycle inner tubes at the local corner.

Don't get me wrong, but you need to be more open-minded.

I thank you for explaining where you stand on this, I just had to tell my experience.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Sep 3, 2019 5:31 AM PST
Thank you for sharing your additional perspective on this, Ben. If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that, as the editor of this website, I seek out products to review from OEM companies that do not even appear to have invested in any sort of public consumer distribution mechanism at this time, invest our reviewing resources, and then tell our thousands of readers they should go chase the company with an email if they want to purchase that product and hope it works out okay? I understand that we have readers who must buy products directly from all over the world because they have limited access to many of the things we can buy readily here in the United States and Canada from a range of sources. But this is not about where a product originates, it is about how it is sold and supported. A little while ago we reviewed a popular XGMI projector purchased from an overseas supplier but fulfilled locally by Amazon, and when we did in fact have an issue with the first shipment attempt it was immediately handled with no fuss. If a company wants to sell products worldwide, they need worldwide distribution and customer/product support. My minimum is distribution and support for our home market in North America that we primarily serve. Please do not ask me to send our audience out into the wilderness to chase products from a company that does not appear to want to sell them to consumers under their own brand badly enough to even advertise themselves as a consumer supplier.
Paul D. Vail Posted Sep 3, 2019 12:44 PM PST
Michael H., I really wanted to get your thoughts on image uniformity, sparkling, and hot spotting. As well, if you have a standard UST capable screen you used the projector with after dark. There seems to be quite a few people who think you must have a ALR UST screen to even use a UST projector. Obviously, that's not the case as many standard screens are rated for UST use. But, did you have specific observations or testing you did between the ALR screen and a standard white screen with the lights out? It would be interesting to hear if one was specifically better or worse in such a case. Likewise, I have seen half a dozen standard ALR materials and every single one of them has exhibited hot-spotting, uneven image uniformity, as well as some sparkling. This is my top reason to YELL at people to avoid ALR screens and instead invest money on good shades. But, I have heard the ALR UST screens simply do a better job at this, and I haven't seen any of the lenticular ALR UST screens personally.

What are your thoughts on all of this? I'm going to be basing my future recommendations on your feedback on this, so I appreciate your detailed insight. Thanks!
Ronald Posted Sep 7, 2019 5:57 AM PST
XY Screens are cheap, that is what they have going for them and that is why people are interested; Even with this Elite CLR already being a fraction of the price of other ALR UST surfaces.

For inexpensive items, it's easier for someone to task the risk themselves to purchase and hopefully be happy. I'm more interested in reviews on premium products at a higher price point and with higher quality and performance. Where is the review on Screen Innovations' UST surface?

Perhaps you should launch another website, AlibabaProjectorCentral.com or BudgetProjectorCentral.com to appease all of your readers outside of North America, who do not contribute to your revenue stream by clicking on your advertisements and purchasing from vendors in your directory.
Michael P. Hamilton Posted Sep 7, 2019 4:01 PM PST
Greetings Paul, sorry this is a tad late...

I'm not quite clear as to what you mean by "a standard UST capable screen you used the projector with after dark." But if you're asking if I did dark room testing with anything other than the Elite Aeon that was the subject of the review, the only other screen I used was the reference (and I mean, Hollywood reference) matte screen mentioned that I tried briefly with the Epson LS100, only to see if the disparity in brightness uniformity the projector exhibited on the Elite Aeon CLR would similarly manifest on a screen known for complete neutrality. And, as such, it did. In fact, the Aeon CLR was highly uniform as well, when a reference-quality 3-chip DLP projector was aimed at it and measured.

I am not aware of (but haven't sought out information for) screens designed for long throw front projection being specified or given a nod for use with a UST projector. But the reference screen I tried was essentially unusable with the Epson UST projector, as far as high quality performance is concerned. For sure, it reproduced an image, but without acceptable uniformity and with hot-spotting and a great amount of the light collecting at the ceiling. Whether a different UST projector might have fared better I can't say.

As for your comment: "Likewise, I have seen half a dozen standard ALR materials and every single one of them has exhibited hot-spotting, uneven image uniformity, as well as some sparkling. This is my top reason to YELL at people to avoid ALR screens and instead invest money on good shades."...While no ALR screen will perform perfectly in an overly high ambient light environment - where shades would indeed contribute to a better result - you seem to suggest that even in the right environment such screens would not deliver faithful image fidelity. I cited one screen in the review I have had excellent results with, the Elite Prime Vision Dark Star 9. While it performed admirably in ambient lighting where a white screen would be greatly compromised, it was excellent in a dedicated theater with none of the characteristics you describe as demerits in the screens you have sampled. Another screen that I have reviewed elsewhere and actually own is from Seymour Screen Excellence, and is their Ambient- Visionaire Black 1.2 For many years while living in Arizona prior to moving to the Los Angeles area, I used this screen in one of my theaters with plenty of mountain view windows and never felt it to be anything short of a complete replacement for a flat panel LCD at any time of day, with ambient lighting reasonably controlled though not completely eliminated. And for critical viewing with lighting tightly controlled, it never exhibited the issues you cite in your comments. With ALR screens, adherence to the manufacturers' recommendations on projector placement and throw ratio is a must, as some of what you say you see can result from incorrect placement.

I had reviewed an ALR screen in the past I found to not deliver quite what the manufacturer promised, however, there may be specific applications where it could provide a solution that other screens cannot. So be clear that I am not saying all ALR screens are free from any of the characteristics you detailed. Those I've named are excellent when properly paired with quality projectors, especially lower-priced machines with less light output than their massive cousins, where the enhancement to black level ideally compliments solid performance.

You say you will be basing future recommendations on my feedback. One thing quickly learned here in Hollywood (where I work calibrating mastering studio displays) is that no two people see color, and in some instances light intensity, in the same way (please look up "metamarism"). My advice to anyone considering any display technology and system assembly is to attempt to personally experience every piece of gear so the expected anticipation of performance is met. Too often specifications and even reviews create an expectation that is seldom realized in the "real world". Even in some studios, large screens and insufficient projectors fail to meet required industry parameters, to much chagrin.

Nilesh Parson Posted Oct 6, 2019 1:15 PM PST
For UST (Optoma P1 is what I plan to get) with shades on the windows, what is a reasonably priced screen to get?
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Oct 6, 2019 1:24 PM PST
Any of the UST-specific ALR screens would work, but this Elite is probably the least expensive. Otherwise, a contrast enhancing screen that does not have a sophisticated optical layer like this might work if you have some degree of controlled light. I'd suggest contacting one of the projector screen resellers you'll find at our Where to Buy Screens link on the homepage and discuss this with one of their consultants.
Brandon Posted Nov 14, 2019 1:38 PM PST
I'm curious if anyone can answer this. Is Elite separating themselves from other UST ALR screen makers by saying theirs reject CEILING light? Or, does it go without saying that an ALR screen is a ceiling light rejecting screen?

I'm in the market for one, and I have a low ceiling. The top of the screen is basically going to be a finger width below the bottom of the crown molding. So will this "CLR" tech benefit me much? Do I need to look for a UST ALR that does more rejecting of lights on the right and left? If there is such a thing. XY Screens focuses on Pet Crystal. Does anybody know exactly what that means? Does it mean it rejects light on the sides better than the ceiling? LOL! You also got the Viewsonic BCP100 or BCP120. They don't talk about ceiling lights or pet crystals. Their mumbo jumbo is "BrilliantColor Diffuser."

I just want to know if basically all UST ALR screens work essentially the same way, and that CLR & Pet Crystal are just marketing mumbo jumbo.

Thank you!
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Nov 14, 2019 1:40 PM PST
Others may have more information about the mechanisms used on other screens, but this UST screen, as well as Screen Innovations, very specifically are designed to maximize the reflection of light coming from below the screen while rejecting light coming from above. They primarily reject overhead light but also offer some left/right rejection properties. The optical filters in the screen will not allow it to be used with a standard long-throw projector as with other ALR screens because the optical elements do not reflect light coming in from that direction back at the viewer.
Brandon Posted Nov 14, 2019 1:53 PM PST
Rob Sabin, thank you for the quick reply. Can you address specifically how this Elite Screen would work with my low ceiling? I mentioned the top of the screen will basically be right below the crown molding. A crown molding is about 5 inches, then you got the ceiling. More specifically, does this screen benefit someone with high ceilings more than someone with low ceilings?
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Nov 14, 2019 2:52 PM PST
The closeness to the ceiling suggests you have little overhead light to reject unless you either have a nearby high hat or other fixture that is reflecting off the ceiling. The side lighting will also ultimately reflect on the ceiling as well and that portion will be essentially canceled. What you don't want to do is drown the screen with direct and nearby lighting from either side and expect it to do more than marginal rejection of light from those directions.
Crystal D Posted Dec 7, 2019 12:29 AM PST
Brandon, I spoke with someone from XY Screens today and their Pet Crystal ALR screen is the same as Elite Screen Starbright CLR. They use the same screen material supplier. Just calling it a different name. Now that Elite price has dropped, it's a more comparable price to XY.
Dimitri Canonne Posted Jan 20, 2020 6:17 AM PST
Hello, If we have a top mounted UST projector, and if we flip the screen accordingly, is the quality equal to bottom UST projector with regular screen orientation ? Thx
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Jan 20, 2020 8:22 AM PST
Dimitri, you should be able to flip the screen for a ceiling mount and enjoy some benefit, but the difference is that light coming from the ceiling will not be rejected but actually welcomed into the screen optics along with the projector's light. The upside is that light coming in laterally from the sides and from below the screen may be better rejected than when the screen is in its typical orientation. Just make sure you have as little light as possible coming from directly overhead competing with the projector's output. But the quality is not likely to be equal to bottom UST projection if you have ambient light hitting the ceiling.
Dimitri Canonne Posted Jan 23, 2020 8:05 AM PST
Make sense. Nobody ever reply to thank you for your replies, so on behalf of all of us, I'm doing it.
Tim Adams Posted Feb 10, 2020 10:30 AM PST
Michael C.,

I apologize for taking so long to comment on this thread-I usually only check the comments on my articles!

To reference your concerns-yes, I tend to recommend higher fL counts simply because my clients generally need to have those counts in order to get acceptable images in their spaces.

Please bear in mind, that ProjectorCentral.com receives a myriad of users with a wide variety of use cases so while my perspective is from the house of worship side, Mr. Hamilton's perspective seems to be from the home theater side of things. However, something you did not mention is if you're wishing to use your projection system during daylight hours. If that is the case, then yes, a higher fL measurement would be necessary. However, good news-I have a solution for those wishing to experience the ALR benefits without paying the ALR price. I won't make the sales pitch here and I'm working with Rob to write an article about this solution, but for now, you can find it on my website. :)
Pat Posted Feb 20, 2020 6:47 AM PST
Hi , Sorry if break open doors but am I correct to assume that such UST ALR screen would ,to some extent, still be compatible with a traditional long throw projector ? I have bought a 0.6 UST ALR screen in the anticipation of an UST laser projector which seems to be in back order for ages. Long story short, I am tired of waiting and wonder if I could reuse that my 0.6 UST ALR screen with a long throw projector (ex :TW9400) or if I should just sell it. Thanks!
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Feb 20, 2020 7:23 AM PST
Pat, if you indeed purchased a dedicated UST ALR screen like this Elite I'm afraid it cannot be repurposed for any type of long-throw projector. There are ALR screen materials out there that more generally reject light, but as our review explains a UST screen has optical elements which will severely reject any light not coming from below the screen. Elite actually showed a material at CES this year that is something of a cross breed, using similar optical elements but positioned at such an angle that along with a UST projector it could also be used with a more traditional short throw projector, albeit with some modest sacrifice in overhead light rejection. Even that wouldn't really be suitable for a standard long-throw projector, however. However, before selling it, I would be certain what mechanism is being used in your ALR screen to reject light. If it was sold as a UST ALR screen, it in all likelihood has the same architecture as the Elite reviewed here.
Pat Posted Feb 20, 2020 8:37 AM PST
Thanks Rob very useful. I thought that a bright projector could somehow overcome the light rejecting properties of the screen but I guess I was wrong.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Feb 20, 2020 8:57 AM PST
No problem. Your thinking wasn't wrong, as most ALR screens are generally designed to reject light coming from anywhere but straight on as with a normal projector. The UST models are a special breed, but because they are so highly specialized, they work very well for their intended application.
IPD Posted May 6, 2020 12:09 PM PST

I bought my PET Grid 110" screen directly from XY. The lead time, cost, features, etc--were all covered in depth by their sales rep. I get that they do not have the mass-production sales outlet that many have grown to expect from other screen companies. However, XY also offers a much more customized, personal experience. I may not even have considered XY at all--were it not for the fact that there were literally ZERO other viable options for a 110" UST ALR screen (they are all 100" or 120"). Granted, I was having to pay 120" screen material price for my 110", but I only had to pay the 110" frame price and the material was made to order to fit the 110" size i needed (vs. having to try to modify a 120" cut down to a 110").

It is this consumer-choice friendly product that is why XY should be given solid footing here. It certainly isn't the "Wal-Mart" of projector screens--where you can just go buy something in 5 minutes and be done. The current screen market (and especially the UST ALR market) has very little in the way of consumer choice--even between brands. 100" and 120" are your only options. Don't even think to ask about a custom size and aspect ratio. XY is different in that regard.

If I had to venture a guess as to why XY doesn't have the "mass-market US audience" outlet that some expect of it, I would say it's because they're already thriving indigenously. Expanding (widespread) into the US market--currently--offers little benefit. But that may change as word-of-mouth continues to push the XY brand as a cheap and viable alternative that can be customized.

Paul D. UST ALR screens not only reject ambient light, they help redirect projected light towards viewing angles. That means that there will be less light washing onto the ceiling than with a non ALR screen--and I would expect that this effect increases with a higher gain rating of the screen. This is kind of what Michael alluded to.


All of the higher-quality UST ALR screen materials will feature some kind of "Fresnel" shape material surface. This allows for deflecting/redirecting light from above while redirecting projected light from below--to the eyes of viewers. Unfortunately, the only reviews of screens tend to focus on things like ambient light, uniform image, etc--and not talk too much about the physical characteristics of each relative screen material. This is akin to trying to benchmark a Dell against an HP laptop without ever acknowledging the identical Clevo chassis behind both and identifying actual, key differences between the two.


The aforementioned nature of the "Fresnel" facing of UST ALR material means that there will be a "Sweet spot" for viewing height relative to where the screen is. By placing the UST projector on the ceiling, you may end up with a viewing angle that's actually much lower down than where the inverted UST ALR screen is reflecting the projected light. That's not to say you won't have any image at all--but it may be sub-optimal because of this. Alternately, you may consider XY's PET Grid material (which I have) which does not appear to suffer from unidirectional problems of this type. I am certain that the PET Crystal is a superior UST ALR material, yet the PET Grid does not appear degrade image quality if hung upside down (which PET Crystal and most "Fresnel" materials will). Succinctly, still good quality UST ALR screen without the potential risk of vectoring reflected light to a non-optimal viewing angle.

Hope this helps.
Ken Posted Sep 2, 2020 10:05 AM PST
Rob, I just purchased this 120" screen to go with my VAVA UST projector. I have noticed SIGNIFICANTLY darker viewing with colors being much dimmer. I know it should be a lower gain, but everyone has said it should be equally bright because it's removing most of the Ambient Light.

The VAVA on a "standard" 120" screen has a bright and brilliant blue. With the AEON CLR it looks much darker blue...almost blue-grey. Daylight scenes look almost overcast.

It was suggested flip it 180 degrees, but that made it worse.

I'm getting sent back and forth between Elite Screens and VAVA. Wondering if you have seen anything similar with the VAVA?
Stan Posted Feb 28, 2023 8:36 PM PST
I am wondering if anyone except projectorscreen people are able to compare this screen with the Spectra Vantage screen that some insist is better?
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Mar 6, 2023 10:34 AM PST
Stan, I am experienced at this point with both screens and what I can tell you is that the Spectra Vantage has a more substantial frame with a black felt surround and has some helpful adjustable height mounting brackets. I don't know that you would see any real difference in the image vs. the Elite. The Spectra is spec'd at 0.5 gain vs. the 0.6 gain on the CLR, but these would be visually very close.
Ryan Posted Oct 25, 2023 10:20 AM PST
Can you elaborate more on the Spectra vs the Aeon CLR? I also only seem to see comparisons from projectorscreen.com almost as if it's their in house brand? Is the frame and velvet worth the extra $700 - $800? Do you see any issue once the screen is up that it would sag or fail in the future? Are the bezels similar? What do the adjustments really provide / minimal?

I'm in no way saying Spectra is a bad brand, I am pretty close to sold on them, however it's very hard to find information other than from what seems to be from individuals that work with, or for, projectorscreen.com.
Rob Sabin, Editor Posted Oct 25, 2023 11:59 AM PST
Essentially same material on the Spectra vs the Aeon CLR top grade material (not the CLR2 or CLR3). However the Spectra is definitely the more solidly built frame and has some adjustment features. So higher quality from that perspective.

Post a comment

Enter the numbers as they appear to the left