Dang Elken, you've gone lap slapping mad with this experiment even your typing looks like your foaming at the mouth, heheheheehe

holy smoke batgirls,,, you are right,, my lines make little sense,,, brainrunaway,,, glad you are there to interpret me,, heheheh

boy.. I must be such a geek.... I'm actually breathing faster after reading the latest results and my pulse is way up too ....sigh..... time for a smoke....

I think I should mention that when scotch tape gets old, it turns brown. Of course that could be like 50 years...

But it sounds like we just need to fill in the rough gaps with a clear smooth substance. Uh...petroleum jelly? Apricot preserves? lol.

yeah and I'd hate to clean it off an LCD .... however I'm gonna run home this weekend and get the olive oil out ..... what the heck!

I was about to say that I felt a little aroused with the latest developements but that a little more than ANYONE wants to know.

Damn geeky if you ask me.

Aroused? Hahahah!

whoa,,,,, girls settle petals,,,, all over scotch tape no less


to be sure to be sure,,,


note twas no less an observation,,, even i am not sure of full effect so to speak of nothing etc,,,,

ummmm would have done it tonight,,, that is the test,, but a couple of good melots and a damm fine port prevented me,,, him who ever from persuing the goal or was that the utopian solution,, aw geezzz sprouting grabage here,, yep spelt it wrong by someone else's intent,, she says keep me happy and leave ya toys for morrow,,,,


now who am I to argue,,, when a woman says now !!!!

darn the oil can wait for a dry day tomorrow,,,,,,

damnn i already had my quota of smokes too, whilst murding a fully functional laptop,,,, like an old virgin to the alter she twas,,,,,

Phuton: Each polarizer must be on either side of the panel. If we get the proximity issue straightened out (I think we will) there is no reason you could not just build a separate frame for the polarizer.

Elken: can you say for sure now exactly where each "sticker" component of the front of the panel is? That is, can you say for sure where the compensation film is? It seems to have been forgotten in all of this. Or is it your reasoning that this older panel has no compensation film? It is critical that we figure this out, so we know exactly what may cause any improvements/problems.

polarization.com sells exactly what you want. They are the highest quality polarizers I could find (over 99.98% efficient). If their specs are honest, then everything else about the stuff is truly outstanding as well. They deliver worldwide. They sell only one non-adhesive model.

Get enough to cover both sides of your panel. It's around $30 US ($39 AUD) for a 17 inch by 24 inch section.

I would get more just to play around with.

These are all 90 degree polarizers. I am still uncertain what you mean in terms of how the polarizer needs to be oriented to achieve reverse sub-pixel brightness (but for middle gray). If the top of the polarizer remains the top, and you flip it over left to right to achieve flipped colors then you have a 45 degree polarizer. If the polarizer is flipped and inverted, you have normal 90 degree polarizers. Simply rotating 90 degrees unfortunately would result in inverse colors with either type.

Put simply: if you flip the polarizer only left to right and nothing happens, you have normal 90 degree polarizers.

If you want some quick, clean pieces to play with, just open up a cheap calculator. The front polarizer is not glued on, and you can just cut it in half to make two. They may not be the best, but should work okay for small test sections. FWIW, I don't trust the polarizer that has been stripped from your panel. It has been through a lot, and as mentioned, likely still has the wave plate (compensation film) attached.

If you find another type make sure it is not sticky backed, and has similar efficiency. The quality of the replacement polarizers is paramount.

Edit: have you removed everything right down to the shiny glass substrate? If there is glue residue left over the entire surface, then the sticky tape phenomenon makes at least some sense. You really need to track down that compensation film if it exists. Is it stuck to the polarizer still?

Mark.

yes right down to glass,,, the last layer was the bifringement layer

very thin,, almost gelatine like,,, ihad used only polariser part for some tests

really needs PJ test for final ok,,, also I used several pieces from five panels,, all work same effect

i did tests today in a hurried fashion,, just did and posted,,, during my weekend will do more thourgh tests,,,

the tape was purely on untouched part of panel

i feel that if i had sheet of polarisers, first would test test panelif okk would them promptly do benq for real,,

Sweet. Now how about the polarizer orientation? 45 degrees? 90 degrees?

And the proximity issue: Lets say you were to set the panel up in the middle of a long hallway. Place a lamp at one end of the hallway, and the polarizer in hand at the other end. Would a clear image resolve at the panel then?

EDIT: and what effect do you feel removing the compensation film had on transmittance/color accuracy and viewing angle? It is this film, not the anti-glare, that is largely in charge of these tasks.

Mark.

I hear ya Elkin, been smoking leftovers so I can stretch out my last pack and gone from beer to coffee now. You and Mark are doing a wonderful and stupendous job and definately making history here. Those of you offering your input as well have been great assets to our goals. Did someone say aroused? -SNIF-...sorry I'm an emotional kinda geek.

On the otherside of the 'box', I fear those who mentioned hotspotting and keystone is something we didn't account for. It would seem whatever the outcome, our pj's may have to undergo some redesigning.

MarK: Contemplating the fact that the LCD in our application is turned backwards to face the light when they are all designed orginally to face us do you suppose the crystals react better at their full potentional as they were built or it does not really matter? Dam, here I am already think as a 'Tweaker'....I hope I don't start another bad habit from all this
sim

Mikau, I have to warn you though, since starting this thread I did try a little oil just to see if I can get rid of the 'scratch' and yes I noticed I was able to see much clearly thru the panel. I thought, my, what if...but the idea of the substance on my panel didn't seem smart at the time, so I rubbed it off hoping just to rid the 'scratch'. Well, guess what, since I had my two 80" fans under the panel seems that the air flow threw every bit of micro element passed it and the remaining residue of oil that may have been on it grabbed every dust particle and was 'caking' on a LCD like a window in winter. And this was after a couple days of use. Using a filter may help but that also restricts some cooling as we all know. Anyways, just thought I'd share that with you. Perhaps, I should have brought that up sooner since Mark now found that out with the tape...oh, well

Also, someone mentioned olive oil earlier. That will get stick and gunky after a while.

But am I missing something? Everyone seems to be getting excited here and I don't know quite why. The idea seems solid, but has it been tested succesfully? I saw those pics on the last page but most of the time I didn't know what in the world I was looking at.

Could someone give me a current status summary? I haven't had time to read every reply to this thread and the gap is widening.

ok....in a nutshell, with the help of Mark, Elkin is now pursuing the test of removing in sections antiglare/polarizers from an old laptop LCD panel and replacing it with other polarizers in hopes of more lumen transmittancy. It worked according to Elkin by about 50% more and more sharpness!, now he is attempting a 'dunk' of the laptop into his pj to see the full effect of this theory or he might surprise us and do this to his 17" Benq which is totally too aggressive since it is only a test but if what he says is true then it only tells us that he has proven the theory that we 'CAN NOW USE OUR PJ'S WITH THE LIGHTS ON! It's a small nutshell that might burst open like a coconut.

Interesting. But I thought it was said earlier this would damage the lcd? How can we remove it without damaging the lcd? If a polarizor is needed, it sounds to me even if you have a replacement material, peeling it off will do the damage. ???

We found some companies that remove/replace films (see first couple of pages). Mark states Petroleum Benzine might be the DIY 'remover' for us. Elkin, simply peeled off the film with extreme carefullness. The pics proved he did just that without damaging the panel. Now, hold on to your britches for the next couple of hours and I'm sure will see why we are all excited...ahem, even aroused

Elken, Mark,

Cellophane and certain types of clear adhesive tapes act as half-wave
retarders. What your smokes are wrapped in should work too.

http://individual.utoronto.ca/iizuka/research/cellophane.htm

The lcd panel itself on the outside is just glass right? It doesn't matter how you remove it, just don't scratch or pit it. I think the only damage that you can do is by static shock, or perhaps really the "damage" that you are referring to is the damage to the polarizer (which is now just simply going to be replaced). Where before I think there was a mixture of ideas (just removing one film, just keeping one polarizer, etc).

ok guys,,

saturday morning,, need a few coffee's etc

then bullet biting,,,

Mark I will test all versions of polarisation,, to establish firm points

I have ARKAYS 15" box style PJ here too,, I will use this as test bay to dunk laptop

and try polariser at certain positions,, i feel doubtful that the polaristion will work anywhere other than against the panel, just by the very crude tests yesterday,

also i need to repeat the simple flipping to confirm orientation,, ala 90 or 45 degree

if we do use a method of removed polaristion ,, I dont think alignment will be to difficult just another thing to tweak, especially if we leave the original "shiny one on the panel"
Mark,, email me if you have specific questions,, as this thread is getting pretty intense to keep full track,,

You'd have to be pretty intense to get this far in the thread anyway . It should be open. The questions that really matter I try to repeat, so no worries there. It'll all play out in the end. My only stop the boat concern right now is the comparison zones. We really do need to display as many combinations of removals as possible with the one panel.

It would be nice to get a test section of that rear compensation film removed as well. I feel one test section needs everything but the vitals removed.

One section should definately be the panel untouched. A side by side comparison will say it all (if anything is to be said). To be clear, a side by side of:

a. Just polarizers on glass substrate (no compensation or anti-glare on iether side).
b. Everything untouched.
c. And a section with just the anti glare removed would be nice.

The results of any other layers can be largely deduced, so maybe just get these combinations out of the way at first. Eventually, a full blown section by section comparison of all the many combinations will be needed. I wouldn't suggest touching a prized panel until those results are known.

Deathray,Elken: the concept leaves no solid reason why polarizer proximity should be a long shot. The basic function should allow for such a design. I'm quite confident there is another factor effecting the test.

Mark.

sorry mark did not mean a private thing,, it was merely a duplicate of specifics,,,

ok the accident,, is looking more than stunning,,

i tried the sticky tape concept on my benq,,,, and wow,,, what a stunning result

A WHOPPPING 30 % increase in LUMENS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

a pic foolowing shortly

pics

Ok,,, this method will the method employed

proof of pudding

now if you guys can come up with something we can use to negate the antiglare, mottling, and make the surface mirror smooth we have a winner

oh ps observe where tape did not bond with my panel,,, it is same as surounding screen..

as I said the other day,, take frosted sheet of glass and wet it,, becomes fully transparent

mind you still follow up on the removal of front polariser and antiglare,, the key is antiglare,,

I think we now can confidently remove this,, and replace with just a polariser only...

and another ps,,, the polariser only works hard up against the lcd panel,, light physics laws apply..

polariser is a screen for twisted light to hit and depending on angle contiued light emitted thru,,,,

an edit,,, with full lights on, the pic is as good as with lights off, proir to tape stuck on,,,, I think that the LF screen really kicks in on this,,,

Excellent, said in a Monti Burns style.


Why not just use clear paint?

DJ

thought of that,,, it would have to be perfect coat,, and pristine clean,, for every spot would show,,,

also coating has to be fully shiny,, almost mirror perfect......

edit hey dazza,, pm me your ph #

ok pulled sled,, applied tape,, half screen test,, crude and quick

hmmmm another side effect

contrast is better too

more defined it is......

Elken, I'm assuming the pics are of what your projecting onto your screen and not pics of your lcd (kinda hard to tell by dark background). It seems your right about having the layer up against the panel. If we were to do this on our own then we would have to have a very controlled room almost in a vacuumed state if we were to laminate a layer and not have inpurities traped between the film and panel, which would be just as worst than a scratch. I hope this can be figured out cause based on this I'm inclined to just have that company remove the antiglare and just put a clear shiny polarizer on and call her good. But I'll still wait to see what you guys come up with.

Elkin, Mark: I think paladin may have something here. Cellophane may be the most easiest DIY fix. As far as I know from commercials cellophane can be wrapped around kitchenware from steel, ceramic plates and plastic bowls and hold anything from spilling out. They also hold while in coolness of your refrigerator. But I wonder if they would loose their adhesion in heat. You think it's worth testing? Perhaps, a little addition of some liquid/oily substance to help the cellophane adhere better, what do you think?

Edit: Interesting, you should read some of the information in that link paladin provided.

Car polish?

Found this on the thread of Light Fusion (LF) Theory started by pb maxxx. Member brutuz provided this info that I think might be worth looking into.

Poly-Optic® Clear Casting Resin, GlassRub
& ClearCut Ribbers
New Poly-Optic® 1411 is a crystal-clear, non-yellowing,
polyurethane liquid plastic with a Shore
D~85 hardness. Poly-Optic® 1420 is also crystal
clear but must be heat cured to obtain strength
and is buffable. Poly-Optic® 14-70 is a clear rubber
with a Shore A~70 hardness. GlassRubTM 50
& ClearCutTM 45 are new 1:1 rubbers for seethrough
molds and decorative objects.

http://www.polytek.com/newsletter/newsletter30-8.pdf
http://www.polytek.com/

It would be almost impossible to guarantee no cooties if something was sprayed on the monitor. You would have to have an ultraclean environment.

ok,,, more thought,,

whilst having a shower before going out tonight,,, I remembered what arkay and i did last year,, he acquired some clear material, for U/V protection when we were all worried about U/V and the affect it had on LCD panels

anyhow this material had about 98% U/V blocking properties, and was adhesive on one side,, used in office's on windows

it is a stiff sort of mylar,, very very shiny on one side,, I found the roll that was squirelled away,, and cut a small piece off and did test stick on laptop panel I murdered for previous experiments,,, well guess what layed in the right fashion, it stuck very clean to lcd panel,,, no cooties (quote someone before)

even if you have to do this three or four times,, it is very cheap to buy and comes in very large sizes's

tomorrow when time avails I will pull sled out and do a serious lay of this material, and take pics to show results

I am now convinced that a full removal of current mottled side, and replacement with single shiny polariser,, will give outstnding results,, however I am not willing to spend the order of $250 aud for a sheet of polariser to achieve it,,,

DIY is about getting the same result with as little or as little as much. so to speak, perfect results

hey Dazzzla,, hmmmm car polish,, ummmm,, nup has to be near perfect flat surface

another thought was to use some kind of kind "wet glue" with a very thin sheet of glass,, like the type used as microscope slides, and allow it to gravity bond to panel,, a bit like mortar and bricks,, sloppy mortar,, gezz affects of Merlots again,,, oh and a damn fine single malt whiskey,, heheheheh

however this would be a very permanent type of method,,,
I am sure there are optical glues out there,,, ummm yes,,, used to bind bonded triplets,, virtually invisible these are..


another thought again,,,

still beware,,, having made the panel more transparent,,, blemishes in the frensels, may now become a problem,, as the anti glare would have covered them up,,

this could be the only "con"

however following are the PRO's

1. increased brighteness,, as eveidenced by my posted pics,, which dont show what it is like in real life..

2. maybe not a contrast increase,, but very positive increase in contrast definition

3: whites become very pure,,, very wierd effect,,,, but dont BLOOM,,

4: colours are vibrant,, watched a portion of fifth element,,, noticed that shiny objects,, actually become shiny,, umm like his orange plastic suit,, looks dead on BOC and LF screen, but side treated,, you can see it is shiny,, chrome ,, looks like life like chrome,, our minds generally compensate otherwise,,, hope that explains what I mean

5:hmmmm Blacks are blacker,, not a shade of grey,, however this does become explainable

a mottled surface defracts the near whites or colours which then in turn pollute the parts that are supposed to be black

maybe this is eveidened by various numbers of us who have had different results with the variety of different panels, and the differences of antiglare techniques employed..

hence why when we refere to LCD specs and the contrast ratio's and how they dont apperently seem to be consistent, also some have reported cloudy effects on panels etc,,, thsi would be a combo of aligments of optics coupled with the different panels, angle of view, etc etc etc ,, maybe some panels just dont fit in no matter how we adjust

so I think we need to revise how we qualify what panels are best,, and really which kind of specs are the most important for use in our Projectors

tomorrow I will also experiment with LCD tilt with this tape, and see how that effects display,,, and also with Unsplit optics as well,,, so hold on to our seats,,,

based on this guff,, looking for further suggestions from you guys,, or even from Brain,,,

please dont sacrifice your panels yet, till we solve any unknown probs,,, even tho I am revvveeed, by this, I dont want anyone to damage anything yet, cause by false trail,,,

clive

These results look incredibly promising. Obviously I was skeptical about the potential of this idea, but those pics look incredible. What a difference something like this would make for the DIY community. The current brightness levels really limit the effectiveness of our pj's, but this technology may help turn that around. Great work so far guys.

heheheh skeptical,,,, geeeez,, it was a@#@#^%^%^& accidental discovery

sorry guys another thought before i hitthe hay here

we may think our panels are very dark,,, but the polarisers are visbly out of phase to our vision so to speak but when powered and depending on voltages twists applied to crystals they are quite clear, to full on twist,,

remeber, light enters at one angle, and then is twisted, to match output polariser,,

a bit like a cone shell,, cant see thru to other end,, but is clear all the way thru,, just not to our vision,,,

so hence is the same for our panels,, except of course the antiglare, surface, is only item that clouds our vision,,, or especially our collimated light source,, diffusion effect..

I'll be quiet now heheheheheh

Great work guys!!

This discovery process is a great read.

I may... i said I may be able to get lcd's from a manufacturer without the antiglare and without the other non used parts of an lcd (casing, backlight etc. ), based upon your conclusions when they come. I have been telling my business partner who is part owner of a taiwanese plant about this LL project. He said he can supply me lcds without the unused parts at a lower cost. This was 2 weeks ago. I will ask him if they can leave out the antiglare in the process next Wednsday when I see him.

So am I correct in that?:

1) Don't apply the antiglare
2) apply both of the polorizers

Can someone illustrate in a drawing, so I can show him?
Or better yet I will wait till you find your conclusions.

I love it when a plan comes together.

Which laws are these? Sorry to give you a hard time, but the problem with this is that the physics are not applying. I really need to figure out what is going on here. I assume you have tried collimated light?

To keep things realistic here:

While the tape is a fun accidental solution, what it is solving has been predicted all along: If you remove the tiny lens like curves in the anti-glare such that that there is no angled surface for light to refract off course, brightness can be enhanced for specific viewing angles. It doesn't matter how you do it:

a. Encapsulate the curves with a material of a similar refractive index.
b. Polishing out the surface.
c. Removing the entire surface material altogether.

The problem with a is adding layers is not good for transmittance. Also, the odds of finding a moldeable material with the same refractive index is slim. It is also likely going to be incredibly hard to fully encapsulate the entire surface, on a microscopic scale. However, this is an elegantly simple, non invasive method of achieving some improvement.

Theoretically, c is still ideal. Here you are removing layers and achieving the same goal. b is also not a bad alternative, as it too does not add another layer, but would need to be done quite precisely.

The wave plate function of the cellophane doesn't seem to be a factor here.

FWIW, there are some new panels on the market that do not appear to have anti-glare. The surface is quite smooth.

Tony88: we are waiting to see the results of removing the compensation film as well. The prediction has been that a panel without comensation film on iether side, or front-surface anti-glare is ideal in our application. If you look at the diagram on page 3, this would be a panel having smooth polarizers pressed () right up against either side of the glass substrate, and nothing else.

Mark.

Yes. Also, we may do away with the compensation films. We have yet to test it completely.

3dlenes has polarisers would they work? someone need to buy a junk LCD and try it out. ebay has cracked LCD cheep. They would be good for a test.let's skin one.

Elken2004, here’s another test you could try to check out the theory that the polariser can be anywhere in the light path. With just the rear polariser on the LCD, project the image onto the screen. Then either hold the other polariser to you eye/camera or place it just above the screen.

DJ

A normal screen will diffuse the polarization. A true silver screen won't, however. So for the sake of simplicity, maybe try the polarizer just over the lens, and look to what is projected -as apposed to looking through the polarizer at what is projected.

I haven't ruled out that other components of your projector between the LCD and the lens may be acting as a wave plate. So the proper orientation of the polarizer could be any number of degrees different after the lens, then what it is at the LCD.I speced the 3dlens.com polarizers in an earlier post (search). If the specs are to be trusted, the polarization.com model is much more efficient, inexpensive, and has more size options.

Mark.

Mark: Am I to understand that the polarizer after the LCD must be strategically placed to the precise degree that it will not diffuse the wave (hope you understand what I'm asking, vocab words may not be correct). If this is the case then wouldn't it be a nightmare just trying to dial the polarizer specifically without deminishing our lumens. Most of us twist our triplet just for focus so I couldn't see us putting the film on it and whilst we'd like to have our pj's built almost machine perfect having to design a sled with polarizer, keystoning adjustment would probably be more of a challenge for the average DIY enthusiast. What are your thoughts?

Mark,
I dont know about your triplet, but the 610mm lens I have is slightly concave on the inside, I would Ass-ume that would mess up the image.
On the onther hand, I can see that a glass plate before the LCD (perfectly in line mind you) would give a cooling solution. In other words, use the reflector then light, then a pane of glass with the first polarizer, then LCD (now highly stripped and modified.) then polarizer on the otherside of the LCD. I dont see that the polarizer would need to be next to the triplet to cut heat, but placing only one on the LCD would work.
I can also see where placing polarizers too far apart would make life hard, I assume they must be perfectly in-line which is easy if they are on the same plane in stead of two seperate planes.

Again just assumptions and some ideas.
I would seperate the first polarizer and place it on a plane (pane of glass 1\8th inch thick) then use carrage bolts to hold them pefectly parralel,at a small distance from the LCd, with an airgap between them for air movement and cooling.
The simply replace the polarizers with quality film ploarizers (no adhesives of course)

SIMUL8TOR,griff30:

To be honest, I'm not sure what you are asking exactly , but hopefully this clears things up:

I was trying to expand on what DAZZLA was suggesting as a quick test. I would only suggest placing the polarizer on the triplet as a test. We need to figure out the cause of what Elken describes as a complete loss of image quality as the polarizers get further from the glass substrate. Should this be corrected, then I would suggest this order:

Reflector
Lamp
Lexan
Collimator Fresnel
Polarizer up against panel side of Collimator Fresnel (if not too hot)
Air gap
Panel down to glass substrate (no anti glare, original polarizers, or compensation films)
Air gap
Analyzer (second polarizer) pressed up against panel side of Condenser Fresnel.
Condenser Fresnel
Triplet
Screen.

Nice, eh? . If you ask me, that would be completely ideal, and dirt simple. Please suggest improvements as you see fit.

These things don't suddenly stop working if the polarizers are off by a bit. They can be 89.999999 etc degrees off where they should be, and you will still get something (not much) of an image. The more off you are, the lousier the image.

But before any polarizer placement flexibility is possible, we need to track down this proximity issue.

Mark.

Mark: Understood, that sounds ideal. Hope Elkin gets back to us soon with his findings unless he to busy watching movies with his new projection

Yeah. Not sure where the guy is.

Another thing I forgot to mention is it seems the polarizers will only need to be lined up with each other, not the panel. So all of these concerns about 45 degree or 90 degree polarizers shouldn't matter anyway if both polarizers will be replaced. In other words, if you spin the front polarizer relative to the panel, as long as the back one spins with it there should be no worries. Unless I'm goofing something up here.

Can anyone tell me:

1. How many lumens a good commercial projector puts out.
2. How many lumens a good DIY projector puts out.
3. How many lumens a good commercial projector bulb puts out.
4. How many lumens a good DIY projector bulb puts out.

I'm just curious more than anything else. Sorry to clog this forum, but it'll help figure any increases in tested efficiency, relative to ideal efficiency. If this is actually a viciously debated group of questions, then let's just forget I asked .

Mark.