No, after stripping the ag/polar from the LCD I started to remove the antiglare, but quickly put it in the 'couldn't be botherd' basket. I have some replacements on the way from 3dlens so I should be able to begin experimenting by the weekend. The reverse panel I was talking about was when I tried it last week before removing the agp.

We need to find a way to determine the orientation of the first polarizer to determine the analyzer orientation to be able to order precut sheets.

Correct .

One way to be able to tell would be to make your own polarizer so you know the direction.

Check out the materials that they use; packing tape, elmers glue and iodine

[edit]Can't really tell if it's PVA glue though.

[edit#2] Elmer's gel glue is polyvinyl alcohol while Elmer's white glue is polyvinyl acetate.

They are both often referred to as PVA... very confusing.

As for precut polarization.com pieces. We can get huge sheets from them for pretty cheap and cut them ourselves to whatever orientation we need. You would also have to decide if you want any adhesive, as it apparently effects the efficiency (but it would cut down on reflections). It's good to know they are flexible and in good communication with this type of thing.

The best way to tell the orientation of a polarizer is with another polarizer. If you don't know the orientation of the second polarizer you can figure that out with glare. Glare from non metallic surfaces will always be mostly horizontally polarized. Therefore, the polarizer orientation that eliminates the most glare is oriented vertically. Polarized sunglasses are (not surprisingly) vertically oriented.This may be what I was eluding to in this post. Only now there is a photo to go with the theory . The idea is that the effect of encapsulation will be more useful to those with anti-glare forward designs, as total internal reflection only applies in that direction (diffusion occurs in both directions). It is also what I was hoping to prove with the last post.

Not sure if it also helps solve if there is any advantage to having the panel forward facing beyond the theories mentioned earlier. Or are those double dots?

I just picked up some Mineral Spirits. I'll soak some more samples and let you know what happens.

Mark.

[Oxalic Acid is safe for everything EXCEPT PVA: Nitrile, Neoprene, Vinyl, and Rubber are okay]

Thanks SonicWonder. I knew there were people on here that are much smarter than I am.

What? Being able to read now puts me in the "smarter than you category?!"

Seriously, I was just looking it up in the chemical resistance datasheet I posted above. It's nice to know someone thinks I'm smart .

Assuming your first polar bear (the one facing lamp) has a/g, the cellophane will help both the brightness, and the clarity according to my experiment. The cellophane must, however, be directly on the polar bear to be leveling the a/g (of course ).

Mark: My girly snapped the photos while I was acting as the test rig - her hands must've shaken a bit (don't ask ) - hehe

Gents: not sure why the discussion of the cellophane is brought up again to increase brightness when it was already discussed previously at the time Elken discovered packaging tape by accident. The idea back then was how to encapsulate the antiglare without having to add more layers to the panel and/or polishing to included painting. However, base on your findings Sonic, your initial discovery of the laser being more pronounced when shined through the cellophane up to the analyzer then polar seemed interesting. Although, not significant, could what you seen be that the cellophane was acting as a recycler or waveplate as Mark as been discussing previously? Mark?

sim

this is for those people that are experimenting with 3dlens polarizers; I asked them about how well doesit perform the adhesive kind of polarizers (lower specs, than no adhesive ones) if the glue is not facing the other polarizer... mmm i mean, let's say we glue it to the field fresnell instead of gluing to the lcd itself.

I sent this image to 3Dlens;
Click to view attachment

they replied me the parallel trasmitance and crossed trasmitance are decreased if the glue is facing outside.

I would say the specs are more like normal no adhesive ones.

Interesting Rox, so the bottom assumption to this is that the glue may be also acting as a diffuser at a smaller scale? Something that you brought up previously before isn't Mark? I wonder how much (if there is a difference) is Elken's projection compared to mine when his is not glued and up to his triplet while mine is still glued to my panel.

sim

i don´t know if the glue is acting like a difuser or a "polarizer killing" (maybe the polarized light entering the glue is not as good polarized when outputs...)

I believe the polarizer layer on the adhesive and normal polarizers available at 3Dlens, is exaclty the same one, but as you can see, the performances drop for the adhesive one. An easy test facing the glue inside/outside will show if it is significant or not.

The adhesive polarizer I would say the buyers bought it because they thought it was easyer to glue to the LCD. A normal polarizer would need some kind of holding... But as I sugested, maybe the adhesive glued to the field fresnell will work nice (glued on the groves side of the field fresnell, so the polarizer faces the lcd and the glue faces the fresnell).

(now, new though; will the glue on the polarizer "fill" the groves on the field fresnell so change somehow the fresnell's focal? Maybe someone can test "tape+fresnell" so we can check if the glue does kill the fresnell work...

I see...my bet is that it will just turn into a sheet of glass or plastic cause now you filled the fresnel's grooves where the light was suppose to bend.
sim

just a quick check,, been reading on and off,, been busy doing the work I should have been doing last hehehhe...

just let all know,, that hmmmmm lost track of days,, but must be over a week since I did the holder for polar bear which is only five inches in diameter,, but all is right on spec... and I have been using PJ every night too,,,

I would never go back to the days of Antiglared panels,, ever,,

The LL PJ is perfect now,,

and as to contrast,, what is it??

contrast is the difference between the white and the black,,,,

and in this new enhanced, LCD,,, I have no way of measuring it,,

but the original panel spec was in the order of 600:1

well if I took a stab at it,, the difference factor,, could place it at around about 1500:1 or more,,

I know I know,,, I will get around to measuring levels.. soon..

clive..

each time i believe much more on a contrast increase...

dam, if i was closer i could ship my luxmeter to you...

The human eye can´t perceive in 1 IMAGE more than 200:1 contrast rate. This is basically JPG compresion key.

Rox to give you an Example

I am watching a documentary on charlie chaplin

which of course is black and white,, I had seen a black and white, before A?G removal..

and the balck and white is so contrasted compared to before

but what is the most striking facet, is the shades of grey,, ummm

its so much like watching a real 70 mm emulsion film

clive..

That’s strange, going by that conclusion there would be no need for any LCD, DLP or CRT to go beyond 200:1.


Rox you picking up some more English I see.

DJ

hi dazzzz

Hello Elken.
Dam It, I’m redesigning my pj again, this thing is never gunna get finished.

And it’s indirectly because of this thread

Elken how do you find using your PC to reverse your image? Is it CPU intensive? I’m procrastinating over which way to face my LCD. I don’t really want to use a mirror and I like the idea of being able to move some of the heat away from the LCD.

DJ

you forgot one point;

yes I said and I hold, the human eye does not perceive more than 200:1 contrast. But the rason why there are higher contrast devices is this;

if you have 200:1 contrast image (like my old compaq 14") and you feed a dark image there, let's say 30 is the brightest pixel (from the 200 capable) then my eye can distinguis between 200 shades of gray in the 30 levels lcd is displaying. So there is a problem; i can see more shades than the lcd is capableof displaying.

Now If I had a 600:1 contrast LCD. Even if I feed a dark image (Or the opposite, a bright image) The lcd will be able to display close my eye's limitation shades.

You were mixleading absolute contrast on the LCD with the relative contrast on the human eye. Obiously we want the absolute contrast on the LCD to be as high as posible.

Dam, my english is improving!

my pref would be as LL normal lcd orientation..

I agrre about heat and vert mount too,,

but at the moment I happy with reversal,, I am gonna look for primary image reversal on lcd directly,,, I feel the smarts chip on board might have it inbuilt,, will get specs pdf's when time avails,, and see,,

I have seen it on other controller chips for panels before,

Oh this is funny

I enquired of BENQ about removing antiglare etc... they stated to me that it is impossible to do,, and panel cannot at all work anyother way than as factory supplied..

and that my warranty would be void....

geez if only they knew,, hhahahahahahhahah..

and that was a reply from one of their R&D people....

I have been following this thread for a while (cant get away too long or you cant get caught up). Has anyone removed the anti glare and ran their projector with that side facing the lamp? I played with the polarizers from a dead lcd and have been doing some experiments (pulled both polarizers). I first tried with a piece of tape over 1/4 of the polarizer to defeat the anti glare. With the tape in place you can see though clearly, and light passes easily. Then I held the polarizer to my crt monitor, and from a distance the results were very distinct, but as I move it closer they became less appearent. When I placed the polarizer directly on the crt monitor there was a slight improvement in light transmitted, but a huge increase in sharpness of the picture. My question is, if you are using this polarizer in the front towards your focal lens I would assume you would get the same results. How much improvement would you get from removing the anti glare if it was in the back towards the light. Will you get that same improvement in sharpness, or just get the improvement in brightness. Im not looking to cast shadows on anyones work here so far, just not alot of people will want or are able to flip the lcd around to face the other way. Any thoughts on this?

But rox you used that statement in the context that elken wouldn’t be able to see that sort of contrast change. Where clearly he could if the signal fed to it was dark.

Don’t put all your faith in numbers. I have a pair OB speakers that you can clearly hear the difference in recordings but you can’t here these differences on most other speakers. My point is don’t underestimate your own measuring instruments, your eyes and ears.


Just unsolder all of the FFCs along the LCD and flip them..LOL



But now they do no. No warranty for you.

DJ

ooppss too late now... warranty,, what is that..

sorry it was not my intention to questionate elkens viewing sensation. I just trhow the data of the human eye limitation. But I actually KNOW elken percives a better contrast.

I have, and the sharpness and brilliance is all there. I cannot compare mine to Elken and I wish I could but from where I sit now there is definately a huge improvement as far as clarity and contrast. Earlier before jumping in and posting this I was watching a little StarWars well I decided to turn it off and finish writing this, just as I maximized this window again I had to strain a bit from the brightness. Mind you its morning now and the sun has not risen.

If your wondering, I did not seperate my polar from LCD, I used stripping chemical to remove while it was still glued to the panel and replaced it back as it was originally designed as an LL projector i.e. anitglare facing lamp.

sim

Elken, some of the fresnel rings are also projecting at left and right, you mentioned this about yours earlier, have you figured where these may be coming from?
sim

Sim
Thanks for the reply. I have 5 lcd's, the benq in my projector, three sharp 15" that I got for $35 each, and a dead samsung. It was pretty simple removing the polarizers from the samsung, not sure if all would be so easy. To me the best way would be strip it and go with a new polarizer if I can find the right one. I have read all the posts, but still not clear on some of the terms. I think it was said there are 45 and 90 degree polarizers, but not sure what I have.

Sim I’ll take a guess at it. If the only thing you have changed is the removal of the AG then I’d say that the rings were probably always there just that now there not being diffused. You might try moving the arc or it might mean you will need to increase the gap between the collimator and lcd too allow the Arc length to naturally diffuse the rings.

DJ

Look at this experiment;

i suggest to look at those pictures at full screen. Let me know if you perceive the color shades on the first one. Then look at the second image.

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

the numbers on the picture are the brighness level from 0 to 255. I like this kind of perception tricks

edit: i found the 40 value on my CRT screen not to be noticeable on the first image. maybe your screens (tft) do not show what i was wanting to show...)

I could see it on my projector, but didnt look as different as when it was overlayed.

Ok, for those of you who would like to see what it looks like without antiglare compared to antiglare with the packing tape on it. Remember that little boy from Nemo I had shown you deep in this thread?

My lady just walked in and asked me if this was a new screen. I told her no and asked why. "Because it's alot brighter for some reason."
sim

Sim: I wasn't really trying to re-hash the issue that cellophane defeats a/g, I just wanted to independently confirm the behaviour. I feel the one thing that can be said is that the orientation of our panels are of MINIMAL importance once a/g is defeated. Even elken says that he would now prefer to have the standard L reversed orientation because software reversal of the image is costly on the CPU (read: not worth the image improvement). My experiments show that, if anything, the cellophane facing the lamp is a slight improvement, but it's splitting hairs.

Also, I don't have a luxmeter , but I am interested in seeing how complete chemical or mechanical stripping of the a/g layer compares with just plain 'ol cellophane ...

BTW: your work is totally awe inspiring! Keep it up!!!

and really, isn't that enough reason to breathe fumes afor a couple of weeks? ;-) hey, is your camera auto or manual? same settings both times? detail is much better you can see color between the window shades!

So is your sense of humor

Good to have your brain on board

Sony 4.1 mega pixels cybershot set to nighttime both times and you ought to see it in person but I'm sure that will be soon. Couple of weeks? hehe

Sonic, your welcome but again, all the credit goes to Elken and Mark. Your previous post had me wondering about the cellophane. Especially the fourth pic, was the laser pen's image due to you turning it or do you think the cellophane added some minimal affect to it.

Sonic: maybe the increase in the width of the laser flare when travelling through the LCD was caused by the coherent light diffracting and causing constructive and destructive interference. Just a thought

DJ

Edit:
I just went back and re-read your post, I think I need to elaborate a bit more. When collimated light passes through two small apertures, (pixels in this case), the distance between them will cause an dotted light pattern. So a longer pattern doesn’t necessarily mean more light.

Got another email back from polarization.com guys. I asked about 12x9 sheets and their orientation. Cheers.


The pictures are impressive.

The film should be mounted dry. When applying it by hand you have to be
slow and careful not to leave bubbles, but it can be done. The difficulty
increases with the size of the display. The adhesive is very low tack and
easier to apply dry than common window film. It adheres well to glass but it
is easy to remove if needed (but cannot be reused). If any bubbles remain,
they could be removed by heat and pressure, but you don't want to do that if
you are mounting it directly on an assembled LCD.

The price of the 10 x 6 sample is $18 (not $15).

George
sales@polarization.com





oh and to answer someones questions above, my lcd was stripped of the antiglare side and is facing the bulb. i actually have the polarizer i removed stripped of the layer using acetone and taped directly to the fresnel (not even the lcd) and have been watching tv like that until i get a replacement. im also looking into flipping the image via hardware.

cheers

I think the pattern was tilted because the panel was a little off horizontal in that shot... rotating the laser makes a difference in the intensity of the trasmitted light, but not the orientation of the diffraction pattern.

DAZZ: you are absolutely correct. The width of the diffraction pattern will only be proportional to the brightness if the structure is symmetrical. In this case it is not. Thank you for correcting my error.

If the human can't percieve greater then 200:1 then why do we care if the panel is 500:1 or higher? There has to be some perceptive differences.

Can the luxmeter measure yellowish hazing? Because thats what i got rid of removing my Aglare.

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...c=7882&st=1520#

Rox,

I hope not to sound too critical of your contribution....but do you think of anything else besides contrast? You seem to be very, very fixated on contrast.

you are welcome,

well, isn´t it what we are researching on? more brightness... more contrast... in fact isn´t a better performances projector our goal?



mmm, the new pro lens will make a huge improvement here I belive...

"I believe"...? rox.. I'm surprised at you...and you haven't even measured it yet ....shame

well, the key on my statement is that I did not say how much increase .

Just an improvement. The tools will then say how much

ooo....my first post. havn't had much to say till this morning.

just like to thank evryone for their posts & contributions to this thread.
it's literally taken me days to catchup on the 1000+ posts. but ive finally arrived.

here was i hesitating to fork out the 30 aus dollars for access to the forums! little did i realise just how much i would gain from fresh perspectives such as those presented in this thread!

thanks simul8r for your detailed pic's of the paint stripper approach.

i took the leap of faith not 4 hours ago.
...drove to my nearest 24 hour kmart and stocked up on stripper (same active component as yours) and paper towel....

ive strippd and reassmbled and im looking at a whole new picture

absolutely fantastic improvement. colour/contrast/brightness.

although i thought i had it pretty good already - outter edge focus has improved substantially.

white is white. & actually represents the 6000+ odd kelvins ive got at my source.

i could rave on for hours. i'll spare you from that tho

anyhow. thanks again.

i will post some photo's of my stipping if anyone cares to see.

i would not hesitate to perform the process again. my only difficulty was the
edging. slowly slowly working out to them took me forever! they still need some touching up.

oh yeah, and - no scratches! which is quite suprising considering some of the hard work i put in. (i used a tephlon kitchen scaple thingy and a sponge)

yippie!!! its 5:30am - time for sleep i think!

or maybe ill just watch one more hd.........