All this is very old news. Is there a point your trying to remake? I say "remake" because all this has been stated, and restated many times before. By the sheer numbers of posts your record shows, I cannot but think that your efforts on AVS have been unselfishly directed at disseminating information & helping others, (...NO ONE could could have that many 'questions'!!!)
...so redundancy probably isn't your norm.
ME isn't a choice to be made by those having viable alternatives.
Many people cannot acquire Parkland, or any of the very few materials out there that can accept an images directly and exhibit well rounded results.
Even Parkland is a "Make Do" for many who cannot afford a screen. Many of these people cannot fathom picking up a roller. Many are truly so lazy and cheap, they expect not just a workable, but the "Most Excellent" solution to just fall into their Lap, and for under $25.00.
I don't know about you, and everyone else on AVS, but I myself, and a few others LOVE these people. Their unreasonable demands and expectations are the fuel that drives our engines of creativity and experimentation.
I was a detractor of ME from the moment I saw the first Screen Shots posted by CMRA. I could myself easily discern most of the detrimental aspects it presented. Many others obviously could not because my dissenting posts were effectively drowned by the sheer weight of the number of effusive, almost gushing posts by AVS'er who rushed out and got a quart of ME, rolled it on a wall, and sat back and enjoyed the results.
The tie in was that the same people also owned the very least expensive PJs out there. X1's, Z1's, Panny 300s, and their ilk. And all of those suffered from the double whammy of having poor Contrast ratios and low lumens. That a tough combo to work against when trying to deliver a excellent image up to snuff with Home Theater standards.
Parkland or any smooth, flat or matte white surface will always deliver more accurate "bright or light" colors. But they do little or nothing to augment darker colors, blacks & greys, and the subtle shade that lie in between. In fact, overt brightness washes out those very components.
That's why some paint their Parkland grey. Or (gasp!) with ME.
ME assists the darker realm of colors in their duties. It has been noted quite often that this is at the expense of the crispness of the whites, as well as producing bluish overtones in some colors.
ME has generated a lot of criticism on the merit that so many who have spent so much more money on conventional wisdom are incensed at all the hype satisfied ME users have posted about it. The same can be said of parkland owners. They catch a lot of flack from uppity PJ Heads as well. That's only natural, for tasting sour grapes is a decidedly human trait. What is a little more trite is that most of that criticism comes also from those who resent all the happiness coming from those people, and its rooted in the realization that they got so happy for so much less money spent.
Back to ME & me.
I started out almost immediately to adjust the ME recipe. I lightened the Grey, eased up a bit on the Thallo Green, added Red Oxide. All those changes worked their different magic. But all had their specific issues as well. I went back quickly to my old tricks of using Greys coated with translucent white paints, (Goo and other alternatives ) I painted both the front AND back of Parkland. Something you should consider. ME on the back of Parkland not only prevents light bleed through, the combination of non-reflected light from the darker rear coating, and reflected light from the front surface is on the order of twice the performance value you get from Parkland alone. Now THAT would be a great subject for you to post some results on. Would you consider that a blending of both elements just might be ideal? It certainly comes in cheap!
I guess I'm just trying to fathom why this subject is being expounded upon once again.
Simply put, if someone cannot acquire Parkland, and has a wall, he could do much worse than by painting it with ME, a derivative thereof, any light Grey as you were suggesting, a Goo product, or just Matte White. And they should be happy.
Simply put, if someone can acquire Parkland, and wants to build a Frame, or mount it on a flat surface, and use it exclusively as it is, they should happy too.
Unless of course, someone comes along to point out why either of them shouldn't be happy. This seems to be the express intent of your thread, which would be, (...and really still is...) Ok, excepting it is redundant information and has been posted previously in posts way to numerous to count. Why the focus on ME as opposed to Parkland? Strictly because of what you see in the color abnormalities/ I could understand that from a PJ Head who owns a High End PJ and a GreyHawk screen. What is your motive?
You could help by clarifying the intended purpose of your posts.
To warn others of ME's deficiencies?
To expound on Parkland's qualities?
To reach 3000 posts before New Years?
Which one of these?
I have moved on to projects that demand considerably more attention and investment that Parkland, painted or otherwise. And then on to other ideas that go beyond anything else out there.
They all cost a lot more money than ME or Parkland, but still considerably less than any good Mfg. Screen. But the 'time & cost involvement' factor will still rule out many from their consideration, leaving simple 'one coat' paints and Parkland, Do-Able, and other sheet materials as the only affordable alternatives left to those who spend a little money to get the BIG picture, then feel they must waffle on spending as least as much for a screen as they did for their PJ.
And who can blame 'em.
I'm not sayin that threads like yours do not serve their purpose, only that your thread's purpose has already been served up. Many times.