Yes...it did turn out that way, didn't it?
Much ado was made early on about the original chosen suggestion of Moleskin by others first, then myself repeated. But because I had not actually tried such (Moleskin) I was taken to task about recommending Moleskin..based solely on the observations made by another AVS'er who had used it back in 2007... because of it's light attenuating aspects. While the tendency toward such attenuation was already expressed, and well known by most who had interest in Spandex applications, apparently it was evil of me to have actually suggested it as being a viable alternative for expensive AT screens without actually having made one up myself.
Upon getting the Milliskin in my hands, I reversed course and made what was an obvious determination....that the Milliskin was considerably better visually, and by the same right of conjecture and reasoning, aurally as well. Actual "build" experience followed in just days.
However both determinations were essentially ignored until good 'ol Tuxedocivic came through with his exemplary testing and proved.
I'll repeat again what some want to desperately change. DIY-ism is based on simplicity, affordability, and to no small degree, the willingness of someone to just up and "do it". Such a mandate served DIY Screen making quite well, and really didn't change until some felt the driving need to do their best to disprove and / or dismiss the viability of stated performance, and visual representations of such. It got way out of hand...became a vehicle for personal attacks, and under the guise of "accuracy" pretty much took a lot of the "fun" out of DIY screen making. In fact, it was taken to such extremes it almostr resulted in the destruction of this DIY Forum.
Some people would like to forget about that as well.
But it is relevant to everything about DIY screen making. I have never stated that testing is bad...nor puts DIY at any disadvantage. Nope...just that it must be taken in context with real world results, all of which can be quite different than tests done with 2" x 2" samples...
Empirical observations (visual) have their place...but obviously audio measurements of an exacting nature are needed to justify stating that Milliskin can do "as good as" or even trump expensive Mfg AT screens.
On a semi related front, it's also be obvious that the use of a Black back ground to "ANY" at screen was an advantage...not a detriment. However it always has the effect of attenuating the reflectivity quotient of a light porous screen.
Recommendations of the use of White or Silver Spandex behind the screen have met with stated objections by some here and elsewhere, but the whole truth is not a single actual visual test has ever been presented to validate such dismissals.
Might there be some degree of issue? Possibly...maybe even likely. But is it enough to warrant dismissal when the conservation of projected lumen output can be critical to many? I think not....actually I know it isn't. To state otherwise is simply a case of a few arguing for argument's sake because they feel the person advocating such needs to be shown to be advocating wrongful advice.
mhutchins is simply / has simply done what common sense and logic, along with accepted practice dictates as being a way to accomplish a given goal...and do it quite well if the needs, equipment, and circumstances both warrant and dictate such.
Smaller screens (92" - 110") can get away with more light loss. Larger screens...and by larger I mean 120"+ diagonal Spandex Screens...do not have that luxury unless a PJ's lumen output matches such need. 2800 - 3500+ lumen output and one can pretty much use a Black backing on BIG Spandex screens with impunity. 2400>....not so much at all.
Lastly, if someone places a Silver or Gray backing directly behind & "against" the rear of a White Milliskin Spandex, the resulting appearance is some degree of "Gray". And since there is NO distance for reflected light to "bounce" between the two, until someone definitively shows that there is a detrimental effect....and that has NOT been shown...only stated... then dismissive statements suggesting that the use of such constitutes a detrimental approach should be held in reserve...or in the least, taken for what they are. Conjecture at best, or simply argumentative responses at worst.