What is your assumption on the polished area, if you look closely at the polished a-glare can you still make out that it is still there but all you did was made it a fine flat surface to point of glass or did you wiped off cleanly?
sim

hey, even if its cracked could you place it in your pj and subject it to some light/heat for a while? does the polish leave any visible residu? wondering if it does and how it will stand up to projector heat.... I'l give it a shot tomorrow....

Yea I got this one:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...AMEWN%3AIT&rd=1

I've got it sitting here but I'm a little reluctant to touch it yet.

I can still notice that the antglare is there so I imagine it will not be quite as good as taking it off and replacing the polar bear. But like I said it might be a VERY GOOD alternative for those who are worried about ripping off the polar bear.

No theres no residue and I even used Mineral Spirits and de-natured alcohol to clean it and it didn't affect the surface. I wanted to see if the shine was due to something being left on the surface. Which in that case you would have to polish it as often as you do an automobile. But after cleaning it , it was just as shiny so it seems that it doesn't fill in the pits with polish but it actually lightly sands the surface smooth. That makes since because it's supposed to work the same way with the Ikea Reflectors.

yeah, it'll be at least a week or two before there are any definitve methods decided(polish as opposed to removal, which polarizer etc)....

I dont see as how you will ever beat complete removal and replacement. Although the risk factor is high for removal, and also more expensive to fully replace as opposed to just buffing.

That would up to the individual builder how much farther he'd like to go far as getting the quality build he's satisfied with.
sim

exactly...lets say you get 75%(or 50% or whatever) of the effect by polishing as opposed to removal replacement .... a lot of people might decide that that extra 25% isn't worth the money(20-30$ for polarizers) and risk(sure most people might be able to do it no problem but look at how many people crack their lcds or rip their ffcs' installing, stripping etc..)

Good point, not to mention i cracked 2 lcd test panels before stripping my main. Turned out fine but pretty gutsy move.

Guys, I think we are technically getting more then a 30% increase. 30% more light may be getting through the lcd, but since the light is not being diffused, more of that light is actually moving in the right direction where before it was wasted. I think removing the antiglare lets more light through, and also uses that light more efficiently then before.

You have to admit those pics look more then 30% better.

tell me two things mikau;

1) how many lux do you think there are on a sunny day on sumer at 12:00?

2) how many lux do you think there is on a full monlight no cloudy night?

(lux always on the luxmeter facing the sun/moon)

While the light coming from the panel will be less scattered and more intense (when using a reversed panel) by removing the anti-glare, it will still be headed in the direction it was going on incidence with the other side.

That said, if the incidence on the other side is anything other than straight into the panel, the polarizers simply will not work as well. They will have a decreased parallel transmittance, and an increased crossed transmittance.

If anyone wants to see this in effect, just sandwich two polarizers and set them at 90 degrees to each other (crossed). Hold that up to a lamp in the distance. Very little light should get through. Now increase the angle of incidence by pushing the right side of the polarizers away from you and bringing the left side closer (Twist it with you wrist, pivoting along an axis perpendicular to the light path). You will immediately discover the problem.

There is a catch. The polarizer will work fine at any angle for light as long as its projection falls parallel to the polarization axis. If you could look straight down on the polarizer, and see any light waves entering the polarizer, you would find the ones that appear to trace along the polarization axis will polarize the best.

So on witnessing the sandwiched polarizers you will find that as long as you pivot along the polarization axis, polarization remains roughly intact.

But here's the thing, unsplit optics sends light in at any number of different angles, not just projected in line with the polarization axis.

Now take one polarizer. Increase its angle of incidence as above. You should find that less light gets through if it's not headed straight through. Removing the anti-glare will improve this factor, but not completely.

The transmittance limitation applies to any angle but head on.

I'm not sure, but I believe polarizer efficiency to be a redundant figure. I think it is simply the extinction of the polarizer (The crossed transmittance subtracted from the theoretical 100% extinction). Thus, a polarizer having 0.01% crossed transmittance will have a 99.99% efficiency.There are a few key factors effecting transmittance of a polarizer. The transmittance of the material it is made from, its construction, and how effective it is at separating out the useable vector (the one along the polarization axis) of incidence light energy. Further, all energy at 90 degrees to the polarization axis will be absorbed completely. This means that a theoretical maximum of 50% of depolarized light will transmit. If all the light impacting the polarizer has already been previously polarized on axis, then their can be zero loss of brightness due to the 50% limitation, or vector separation inefficiencies. That leaves only the transmittance of the material itself as a factor. Typically this transmittance is somewhere around 85%.

Mark.

Rox I'm only saying before it was being filtered, AND defisued, so some of the light that was already getting through the lcd was not actually being used.

wasn´t that the key of removing the antiglare? i mean we can sunstitute the analizer (polarizer film) by a higer efficent one, but i think the only meassurable improvement is because of that difusive effect is gone.

maybe, but when I switched from the ushio, to the venture, I went from 32,000 lumens, to 40,000 lumens. Thats a 25% increase I saw. I think elken is using a ushio so if it is a 30% increase it shouldn't look much better then the venture. But those pics like a thousand times better then my projector. Also it seems contrast is being improved significanty.

It may be a 30% increase in light or whatever but it seems to make the image look 4 times better.

Hey!! I reached the end of the thread!!

I actually reached the end of the thread!

mmm, actually i think the efficiency is calculated considering both the paralell trasmitance and crossed trasmitance. It could be posible a 10% paralell trasmisive and 0.001% crossed trasmisive that would be 99.99% efficent as well.

so your thoughts are that split optic is best> I do know (I think) that elken was using unsplit and raving about the picture, though I gues its relative ;-)

anyway....(mark) what percentage increase will there be if we use the 3M 43% polarizers as opposed to the 38% standard ones? just a 15% increase in lumens transmitted or doubling?(since it seems the polarizers are responsible for the majority of the lcd non-transmittance?

Agreed. I like that idea better . I hadn't realized that polarizer extinction is a ratio. But I just did the math that way and the numbers seem to be exactly in line. Where is it that you think the numbers are wrong? And where is the data inconsistency you mention between the top paragraph, the table, and the chart at the bottom?

Edmund Optics Product Page.

Efficiency (550nm) = 100% minus 0.01% (Crossed Transmittance) of 27% (Parallel Transmittance) = 100 - 0.0001 * 0.27 * 100 = 99.9973% = greater than 99.99% efficiency.

Average Efficiency (Full Spectrum) = 100% minus 0.02% (Crossed Transmittance) of 27% (Parallel Transmittance) = 100 - 0.0002 * 0.27 * 100 = 99.9946% = greater than 99.99%.


Extinction (550nm) = 100% - Crossed Transmittance = 100% - 0.01% = 99.99%.

Average Extinction (Full Spectrum) = 100% - Full Spectrum Crossed transmittance = 100% - 0.02% = 99.98%.

Mark.

this afternoon everyone must have been asleep because for about 2 hours ther ewas nothing....I thought the server went down or something ;-)

whoa! that stuff is amazing!, got it at walmart this afternoon and just tried it on my test panel and sure enough, polishes up right good! now to test it on my real panel......

My first post on thread. BIG dibs to Mark & Clive for this groundbreaking work and a shout out to all the groupies who have taken on their polar bears and emerged victorious - I salute you

I have an old IBM 486 laptop with an LCD screen to experiment with, but I fear that the current state of technology might have rendered this obsolete for testing purposes. Anyway - always happy to try. My BenQ will definately be getting this mod done as well, the difference is just too great to ignore.

A recommendation: Macguire's makes a polish called FINE CUT which is supposed to be the bees tits when it comes to polishes. It is supposed to exceed Mother's (actually Turtle Wax) competing products. I used it on a nitro cellulose lacquer finish to get it mirror smooth. I think this is worth a shot and I will try it ASAP.

Mark: is it still recommended to test polishes on the LCD diffusion sheets? I have several lying around.

My guess is everyone'll see their panels transmit 5%-10% (unpowered). I know my measurements are not accurate, but they're ballpark. I sat the original antiglare back on the stripped LCD and got a transmission of about 7%



Magview 17"



Same as Elken did

Excellent mikyd, I was about to strip my Kogi 14" out of it's casing and drop into my pj for a test, but guess your half way there. Please show us some pics if you can.
sim

Mark, did this help you at all. http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ic=7882&st=1217

sim

Elken, are you there?
sim

I think there is something fishy about those 3M polarizers. They do not show a cross transmittance spec. What that says to me is that the 43% may be because they allow some unpolarized light to pass through. If this were the case then the cross transmittance would show something like 5-8% as opposed to 0.05%. I suspect that may be the reason they do not advertise a cross transmittance.

SIMUL8TOR: Thanks for setting that up . I am still thinking about that image. It may not be big enough to fully test. I have pulled a lot of figures from it, but I need more time to think if they are accurate.

WARNING: I am quite tired, so this deduction may just be completely ugly.

First off, I should note that efficiency usually drops as standalone transmittance increases. Until the actual crossed transmittance is known, we can't say wether 3M polarizers are any good. That said, 3M markets that particular polarizer for use in panel laminates as the only polarizer. Therefore I figure it must have very good extinction.

The 3M single sheet parallel transmittance is given (83%) as well as the single sheet depolarized transmittance (43%).

So, (according to my math) if used as the polarizer you can expect a 13% increase in brightness from DRPF VS polarization.com, 3dlens.com or Edmund.

Being that it is not given, I have deduced the 3dlens.com single sheet parallel transmittance to be around 76%. This means you can expect a 9% increase from 3M as an analyzer, if you could find a non-reflective model.

Therefore (careful Mark ) you could expect that replacing both polarizers with 3M polarizers would give 24% more light than if you replaced with polarizers from the other companies listed.

Feel free to correct my math. I am quite tired .

But here is the money. By using a reflective polarizer from 3M, it is possible to design a light recycler. With a light recycler, the energy that impacts the polarizer that would normally be absorbed (figure around 47%) could be recycled. I outlined a plan for this earlier, based on a link that DAZZZLA provided. Realistically, a 47% increase in brightness is not going to happen with the design, but the results could be outstanding.

It's too bad we can't get our hands on just a couple 3M films. Doesn't make testing very economical when you have to buy $500 worth . They may have just lost a customer. I hope we can get some sheets from one of the display enhancement companies people posted earlier.

EDIT: So factor 24% with 3M polarizers, around 17% (The only measured figure yet) with anti-glare and plus somewhere between 0 () - 47% with light recycling. That's a pretty sweet television.

Mark.

http://www.polarization.com/shop/catalog/

(PLEASE BE AWARE THE CHEMICAL USED IS CORROSIVE, ALTHOUGH, TRIED BY MYSELF AND SUCCEEDED IT IS YOUR DISCRESTION WHETHER TO PROCEED WITH THIS PROCEDURE ON YOUR LCD PANEL)

UPDATE

For those of you who find it unnerving to rip the skin off your panel. I already gave you the polishing idea, heres a way to totally rid your a-glare WITHOUT ripping.

Long hours on this. Several to many applications, but I think I know why. Forgot to lightly sand down the a-glare as what Elken suggested when applying acetone. Light sanding not to penetrate the a-glare and ruin the polar, this allows the chemical to sip in and do it's job. Please refer to the bottom link for pictures of sanding and application. The light sanding procedure has definately made the process alot easier and in a shorter time: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ic=7882&st=1400

The consistancy of this product is paste like, so, it is much more controlable as compared to acetone. The kicker is to watch for the edges of the a-glare/polar film, this stuff is BAD however if sanded prior to application will allow a quicker time to use and prevent any to further damage. Either test your edges if you want or suggest taping or steer away from them, your choice. Apparently the polar is quite rezealant to this stuff too, no harm came to it has you will see in pics.


Needed:

Kleen Strip KS-3 Premium Stripper (there might be better) READ THE DIRECTIONS!!! http://www.kleanstrip.com/removers.htm I suppose any hardware store would have it, bought mine at Lowes $7.00.

sand paper.....I used grit of 220, scour antiglare lightly with several strokes, more scouring areas the more for stripper will penetrate. REMEMBER..the polar is underneath so don't cut in to deep otherwise you will harm polar. By then you might as well 'rip' it off.

brush....used a nylon type, cheapest brand and came in different sizes.

several sizes of plastic paint scrapers....again cheapest brand. Just MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE A FLAT EDGE...no little plastic deformities made by the manufacturer. Oh, and also the plastic scrapers are soft (I wouldn't use metal, edges are too course 'spell') While scraping you will notice it will begin to show signs of denting. I suggest sanding the edges removing the rough areas of the scraper prior to putting it on the panel each time.

lots of rags (edit: and soft sponges for final cleaning is suggested. Rags or hard cloths will leave fine buff marks on the polar).....and I mean lots. Some for wiping the residue stripper off the scrapers, others for alcohol clean up. Also, some for wiping off hands, it does burn a bit. Oh hell...

plastic gloves....if your the sensitive type.

alcohol (denatured or whatever)

tape (suggested, but needed to protect fcc and circuit boards.)

Alcohol is used to clean up mess.

Prior to applying be sure to protect all fcc ribbons and circuit boards by masking w/tape, thick plastic or cloth. Do not let this chemical touch anything but the antiglare. It is paste like so it is cooperative and controllable. (edit) ALSO IMPORTANT: As I've already performed this on my own panel, I strongly suggest that the polar on the other side of the panel should be masked! Allowing this solvent to run over and touch the plastic coating on the other polar can and will erode it. Good luck.

....

...

on your link upside says the efficiency is 99.99% but downside it says efficiency is greater than 99%. (99.1 % is greater than 99% but is not af good as 99.99% , there is my confusion on with to trust on the two specs )

on your math there is a mistake in my opinion; the crossed trasmitance of 0.01% is when two polarizers are crossed and no polarized light is inputed. But your maths are assuming the second (the second on the paralell) and the 3rd polarizer (those two are crossed) have the same crossed trasmitancy as the stated. But you forgot you are shining already polarized light to this subsystem (the first polarizer does polarize the light so the extintion on the last two can´t be 0.01%, actually we don´t know the stated extintion on polarized light + 2 crossed polarizers.)

Click to view attachment

edit; soory mixed 3dlens values with yours (30=27%) you know what i mean
edit2; the 3dlens has better parallell trasmitancy and better crossed absortion, but calims worse effectivity (99.98%) something must be wrong here.

Yep still alive here,,,

time out time,,, brain has gone into bear hibernation,

still have not unsplit optics

but it will be done....

and sim that be a radical move, to be sure,, to be sure....

where'd you get it?

and why be careful of the edges? so it doesn't get underneath the polar an seperate it from the glass?

Lowes Hardware, but I suppose most Hware stores have them. Yes, as well as frayed polar. Remember there are 3 laters, plastic - polar - antiglare, they are adhesed together. You may be able to get away with getting the antiglare off edges but take care. I've noticed also using acetone it starts to melt the adhesives, other than that I haven't found any damage to the polar (knock on wood). Since its paste like it does not run like acetone would giving you the advantage to control where you want it put. Its another alternative but more aggressive than the Mothers polish if you want that reflective look and lessen the diffusiveness of the antiglare without pulling the entire film off (risk cracking lcd). And again guys, I'm offering ideas and sharing what I've done. This route as well as the rest you've seen on this thread is pretty much up to you.

sim

hehe, you know me either 'grip it and rip it' or 'grip it and strip it'

sim

thanks sim.... will look for it in the morning and yes, definitely an individual decision, but we all appreciate your solvency ;-) anyway...I can see a difference between the 2 in your pics...how does it look in real life? this is where I was talking about earlier that there will end up different methods depending on how "foolhardy" one is ;-).....

I can see on the monitor, on the a-glare/polished side has a light grayish tint, on the stripped side the whites look whiter, up close the pixels look little more distinct.
sim

about the edges...I may mother the edges then try this for the rest..it won't help the dim corners any but I've discovered that unless you're watching 4:3 tv or working at the desktop pretty much everything is widescreen or that 2.35:1 ratio so the edges and corners aren't that worrisome to me anymore... I have a feeling I will at some point remove the polarizer altogether anyway...

Oh, and btw, don't put your back into the stripping. Just a little hand pressure while gliding the plastic scraper would do.

ok, thanks, hey by the way we think its the embossed 3M stuff that might work right?

Mark(or whomever) I'm still confused by why going from 38% standard to 43%(3m and yes I'm suspicious too) polarizers wouldn't increase the lcd transmittal from say 7% to something like 11-12% total since the polarizers account for the majority of the lcd transmittance figure? which would result in a 50% increase in total lumens over standard polarizers ....

On a stripped panel . If you tape the edges, let's say a 1/4" . Then after you strip it, remove the tape. Then using a rag , wet it with stripper and lightly rub the 1/4" antiglare strip that is left.
Do you think it would come off fairly easily without damaging the polar bear or anything else? Because you're not letting it set on the polar bear but you're just wiping it across the antiglare that is left fairly quickly. ????

Thanks for trying it , I still say it would be a lot easier to just remove the antiglare than to have to buy new polar bears.

2 questions;

1)have you think about a reflective polarizer setup? (would like to see a pic)

2)how can the paralell trasmitance be 83% when single is 43%?

It's required to leave the stripper on for 15 min. according to the directions. Although, this might vary since I suggested to lightly sand the a-glare so that it will sip in and that the consistancy of the a-glare is pretty tough stuff. I didn't sand so it took me longer, but when I had an opportunity to sand some of the areas I notice it came off rather quickly. Please also notice that the panel was still in it's casing, I'm only suggesting to take heed when going towards the edge. Perhaps sanding before stripping may do well in this case.

Not denying total removal of film is best, just offering alternative for those 'butter finger' groupies.

sim

aw cr*p ..... I'm getting the urge to remove my polar...damn....