My concern is in reguard to the possible reduced viewing angle and it's effect when tilting the LCD to achieve the best possible focus while keystoning.

Elken2004... very nice...small pics...impressions? (now i'm writing like you )

If i can get that much improved brightness i will deal with lack of keystone to be honest.

now bear in mind my unsplit optics are perfect related to each other,, due to fast setup,,, unsplit cant be 1 mm off erst aberations occur in corners, that why its a bit duller, due to misalignment,, have not distrubed those erst would contaminate current range of testing,,, grrrr

damm perfectionist in me ,,now I have to fix that,,,, you can see fresnel rings on outer zones,, not focus prob, just pure alignment

also I think I have unravelled a way to correctly align lamp too,,
sitting here you would be hard pressed to see dimming at all in corners.

compared to last week even that alone has wow factor...

what teh devil happened to last page,,, darn new one again grrrr

fifth element shot please elken

i need my fix!

As long as the polarizer is on the panel, or in a frame that moves with the panel it would be no different than with an unmodified panel.

But here is the thing, full delamination now allows the polarizers to be individually adjusted to stay perpendicular to the collimated light, regardless of what angle the panel is at. That is what it is really about. That should give an advantage over standard panels (assuming we are not introducing too many reflections). Of course, the only way to keep the polarizers perpendicular to the collimation is to keep them in the collimated area.

Mark.

i cant wait for my sheet to get here, i got enough to make a test, before purchasing the large sheet .

the adhesive one would be nice, although im not sure i would be able to apply it without air bubbles

Mark, will do, now where would you like the test film - on panel, under triplet, above triplet. Mind you I'm using the overhead, it has no collector fresnel but it gives a good image. Also, since I don't have an fcc extender on the panel there's only a portion of it I can use, so the picture will be shrunken, is that ok?
sim

Elken, the colors in that pic bring tears of joy. Completely awsome!

Man, the antiglare is truely an evil thing. Its funny when you realize the antiglare is actually an extra effort the lcd manufacturer had to go through to make an improvement. lol. Its an improvement for a monitor but not for a projector.

Hey you said you'd get some comparison pics tonight!

Would ideally be full sized, but smaller should work. Put the test polarizer on the panel please. The image needs to be at it's best in all test areas. This is only possibly in the case of the anti-glared portion as the image will get fuzzy as an anti-glared polarizer gets further from the panel. At least up until the lens where it will get better as you get closer to the screen.

Thanks,
Mark.

I thought I should mention that unsplit optics should not be ideal in this situation due (again) to polarizer incidence inefficiency/transmittance limitations. Same as with a normal stock panel setup, though.

Mark.

AAAAAAARRRRRGGGHHGHG!!!!!!.....the bulb blew on the ohp, dont have a replacement...and its 2 am >:(

5:00 am here. (yawn) couldn't sleep with all this excitment. So did some programming in the meantime.

Mark, just a little note, when keystoning, the light is moving straight through the lcd in all area's untill it leaves the lcd and then enters the collector. THEN the light starts moving in. In an unsplit situation the light is moving in before and after the lcd.

. What comment are you correcting?

SIMUL8TOR: I say tape up your actual projector . Only need a thin long horizontal strip of tape to prove the point with that image. Regular 19mm wide Scotch tape. Don't do it if you aren't comfortable, though. That image will tell us a lot more than any screenshots could. I'm working on one that will allow you to tell what the rough transmittance improvement is without a luxmeter. If someone else want to whip this up:

A 50% gray strip running the full width of the screen. A gradient running across the screen just below. This gradient should go from 50% gray up to around 75% gray running widthwise. The point where the two strips meet is where the edge of the tape should run. The tape should sit overtop of the gradient and not the 50% gray strip. The viewer then chooses which point along the gradient is closest matched in brightness to the 50% gray reference strip immediately above. The the difference between the % gray chosen and the reference gray (50%) is the rough % increase. I say rough because the dark end of the gradient will get lighter slower than the bright end. This is assuming that blacks will remain black as whites get lighter (something that will be established with the color bar test image).

You don't happen to have a microscope do you? Could be useful in figuring how flat we can get the anti-glare and seeing how it is composed.

Mark.

my mistake. I thought you said "split" optics.

Mikau, 5:00 am, I thought I was an insomniac

I’m not sure I totally agree with this Mark. If we remove the anti-glare, which is diffusing the light a bit, The light coming from the LCD now has a smaller viewing angle. But only testing will tell.

DJ

Elken I’ll do the pic later on after the new star trek, starts in 15 minutes.

DJ

ok Mark, getting some zzzzz's now.

ok a side by side

left side 15" BENQ no LCD Enhancement
right side 17" BENQ LCD Enhanced

now remember a 15" will be briter by default less density pixels and less black matix etc

no settings have been changed in LCD panels all equal

so in effect this enhancement would benefit a 15" more than a 17"

the biggest effect is the sublte colours that are lost with Antiglare...

please dont ask for anymore side by side,, this part of testing phase over..
I am satisfied with results, now proven

Next step tonight to ( oh it is tonight ) someone turned the sun off whilst I was looking otherway,,,unsplit my optics again, rerun a variety of tests again..

clive..

I deliberately only tested at a few locations so that I was sure that I wasn't increasing the brightness across the whole panel by accidentally moving it. Tape plus polish was the best. For those wishing to leave their LCD alone, and going down the tape/film layer addition path, it might be worthwhile to give it a polish first, less 'hills and valleys' to fill. (would want to make sure that the film would stick to the polish, however..)

Lux Test 01



I possibly could have gotten it smoother, but i didn't bother. Someone hypothesised that due to its construction the a/g layer could never be smoothed completely by polishing. Tonight, I removed the antiglare/polarbear from my Magview. (Up there with a factor equivalent to stripping the LCD in the first place!). I removed some of the a/g from the polarbear as per Elken's method. I can clearly see through the cleaned portion, the polished bit still looks very hazy. I even polished it a couple more times but it didn't improve.

I think i recall Elken concluding (and I now concur) that the polishing method (pardon the upcoming pun) just won't cut it.

It appears to me that the 'antiglare' is bonded to the polariser film, it may even be a spray coat of some kind. There doesn't appear to be separately joined 'films' as such. Elken's method of roughing up the antiglare, soaking in acetone and then polishing it off does work, but it's too high on my 'effort factor' scale to be worth it. My quest now is to find a replacement polariser.

From the removal of the agp, there was little to no residue left on the LCD. Cleaned off easy with some acetone, then Maguires no smear glass cleaner, ready for a new polarbear

On a quantitative note, I stuck my lightmeter under the panel before and after I ripped off the agp. There was a 28% increase of light transmittance with the film removed, which will obviously be offset a bit when the new polariser goes on.

sorry my late post, but this trhead is runing too much for my comprehension.

I think those values just CAN'T be. I have checked them on the link, and found they are stated in the upside paragrap and then somehow diferent on the specs downside.

I think the paralell trasmitance/crosed trasmitance/efficiency are linealy dependent. Tell me 2 and i will tell you the 3rd. (I am not really shure about it but I would say i am correct).

the values shown here do not satisfy my intuyed teory. The rest did.

thats odd.... I thought (from all the sites I've seen and on here) that the "standard" polarizer was 38% transmissive..so I would have expected more along those lines if not even more because of the anti-glare...you were talking about the after being just the (original rear) polarizer being on the lcd right?

Yep, just removed the 'front' film. Can't vouch for my measurements being 100% accurate, but I placed the lightmeter and held the lcd in about the same spot when I took both measurements. Just using the office downlight as a source. Once I get the replacement polarbear I'll see what the difference with that is.

ok, although looking at roxs post right above yours I see that "parallel transmittance" on a pair of polarizers was 27% which is suspicioisly close to yours....being very fuzzy on what that means but maybe thats why that sie increase?
mark? mr theory man? is that what parallel transmittance means?
kind of makes sense(I think) ..maybe...possibly...ah who knows..... think I'l work on a small light fusion screen this weekend ..... easier to comprehend ;-)

I just did a quick test on the removed film it has 'light in' 355, 'light out' 155 ~44% transmission (about what we expect).

Remaining LCD/input polarbear has 'light in' 340 (moved the lightmeter from previous test), light out 24 ~7%

hmmm... so with both on it I would guess it was about 5.5% transmissive(figuring your original 28% increase after, I realize all these measurement and calcs are rough) ? boy I wish my optics/math was better... anyway...what brand/model panel? do you have another you can look at? just wondering how the amount of anti glare varies from panel to panel .....

oztang if you will can you detail your acetone /rough up technique (with brands of products used if you dont mind )


got a response from an optics professor:

Edmund Scientific sells sheets of polarizer: http://www.edsci.com/.

H.

>Hey,
>
>I am an EE student at NCSU, and i have been searching for a sheet of
>linear polarizer somewhere around the raleigh area. Im doing experiments
>with LCD displays (which use two polarizers). Do you have any idea where
>i could find something like this?


Not much help, but im scheduling an appointment to discuss the questions we have at hand (polarizers with fresnel condensed rays, keystoning etc...)

whew been ou t whooping it up with some girls,, boy I feel better

bit of alcohol.. some damn fine music,,, and had to read heaps just to up with it

'hic'

More than one at a time is just greedy

yep,,, sure is,,,, hey daz did ya see the side by sidie's

cool, marks brain probably needs to cool down..... speaking of which..
ok, in all my searchings on the net(and from links posted her) it seems the standard efficiency of polar bear is 38% true? the only one different is th 3M that claims 43% .... now sometimes my logical skilss are a tad rusty, so help me here...
if we assume that the lcd polarizers are standard at 38% transmissive.... does thi mean that since there are 2 of them in the lcd panel that they block 76% of the light(though I understand they don't really "block" it) or would we use the "parallel transmittance" figure? and what effect would going from the standard 38% to 43% transmittance do to the final %? its about a 15% increase(from 38 to 43) so would that be it? OR would it really be larger than that? since it looks like the lcd averages 3-9% transmittance total.... would that increase total transmittance from say 5% to 10%(thereby actually doubling the light)....so confused.....
.... so it goes like this(correct me if I'm wrong):
polarizer/analyzer combo:parallel transmittance == 27% (for argument sake)
lcd transmittance = 7%
that means the lcd itself takes about 20% of the total light transmitted?
(I've stripped an lcd of p/a combo and the lcd is , well, clear as glass (realizing that glass does absorb/reflect light also)
help?

The one thing I learned out of that little setup was,, how much with antiglare, we are,, have been missing in the inbetween colours

so much for the 16.sumfin colours factor,, i reckon , uneducated it was more 256 levels,, you can only realise it whe you have two side's, and watch tv on it for a while as I did,, gawdddd!!

its like frosted glasss effect focused, with great loss of subtle colours,,

now i understand clearly why skins tones looked so much more real life..
with enhanced panel,, actually should say a denuded panel heheheh

ummm guess what,, the unsplitting did not happen tonight playing did tho,, heheh

oh well morrow is another day,,
but will happen

oh did you notice that the left hand image from 15" was much bigger,, even tho both were same distance from screen
one split one not.. ummm cryptics again (fresnels) or phonetic (freanels) sounds kinda ummm french heheheh

elken,

can you verify that this picture is correct, based on your posted SxS pic's ?

thanks.

edit: changed BOC to Painted White Door

Click to view attachment


OT... question from SupraGuy's PLOG... I haven't done a 17" yet, but plan to pretty soon... although I want to be sure of it's ability to become "elkenchanted" as i'm very impressed with your setup thus far... my 15" 520D may become a "tester" for me... but it looks like that panel is one having a problem thus far...

Yep looks great, a definate colour improvement.

can you do the test again but this time…..

3d polarizers hum.....
http://www.stereoscopy.com/reel3d/projection.html

oh gee tanksss dazzy,,, remember I know you are,, well within 5k's heheheh

I had a pretty easy time getting the antiglarepolarbear off, and have since fixed my restart issue(flakey grounds ). I will try the acetone procedure as outlined by elken and report back later this evening.


elken i need the pure acetone in the metal jug dont I? this nail polish remover isnt causing much reaction at all to the anti glare. Also did you strip off both sides ( of the polar bear mine has: cleargluey -> polarizer -> clear/antiglare)?

if you mean lcd,, just the antiglare,, dont touch other 'polar bear'

if you meant acetone treatment just the anti glare side

but test a samll corner first.. cant be sure of other brands A/G

mine was BENQ


oh sorry to answer other question,, that was a sliding door painted white

OK few last questions :

What kind of acetone

and

you end up with antiglare removed, but still have the clear backing to the polarizer which the glue was on prior to cleaning.


Thanks agian

ummm the acetone i bought about ten yr ago,, used in working with fibreglass,, pure acetone
just please remember test first,, dont commit to heavily

what is being achieved here is a clear 'polar bear'
all that should be is a tint,, not milky,, if it works you will see what I mean

dont treat opposite side at all it is already shiny,,,

geez my spelling sucks heheh

elken,
thanks for the clarification, updated pic to indicated as you have stated... LF is in my future... I currently have a UPW screen so i'm hoping to get the kind of improvements shown in your pics...

BTW, great SxS shots... really shows the difference in both screen materials and of course, your "enchantments"... keep up the good work.


mike,
i'll be watching your progress with keen interest... i'm not ready to experiment with my panel until i'm able to "write-off" the $190 i spent on the sucker...

GadgetSmith, shake the dice and roll

grip it and rip it

ill go pick up some acetone, done with class

I just tried Mothers Mag and Aluminum Polish on my cracked LCD.

This just might be the "Low Hazard" way to get more lumens without having to rip off the polar bear.

It is very easy to use . I estimate around 20-30 minutes to polish the Antiglare and cleanup , etc.

Just use a clean smooth rag and put the LCD on a flat surface. Then polish in a circular pattern starting at one corner and work your way across. Then repeat once or twice depending on how good it does the first and second time.

The area I did started to really reflect and shine after 2 passes.

Nice stuff it works better than ANY of the waxes and compounds I use in the Car Industry.

where did you get it?

I got it at Advance Auto Parts Store but I've seen it in every auto parts store I've ever been in.

It's a small plastic can about 4" tall and 3" round.

cool, theres one about a block from here....

jonjandran: thanks, I was hoping someone would try it and see for themselves.
Were you able to see thru the area that you polished, is it clear as to see anything past it? I was able to so you should too.
sim

(edit) btw, got my mothers at Walmart.

Yes I could see very clearly through the LCD after I polished it. On the unpolished section it's VERY hazy and VERY hard to see through.

I also used 2000 grit sandpaper on a section and you can sand the antiglare all the way off but it's impossible to do it without hurting the polar bear.

I also tried high speed buffing the antiglare off but it creates too much heat and the plastics egin to melt.

Wish I had a non cracked 15" so I could polish it with Mothers and do a half and half test with my projector but the test panel I'm using "was" my 15" from my projector. I have a new WUXGA 15.4" but I'm waiting on the controller from Minoten.

and I'm guessing that you will get phenomenal results from your wuxga panel(laptop lcd right?) its my guess that laptop panels being mobile have heavier anti-glare than lcds designed to be stationary...