Have you seen my recent post on the fact that I was able to use PVA itself to bond the anti-glare? It is pretty good confirmation that there is no adhesive.Unfortunately PVA is naturally clear. If you heat it up it looses transmission, if you leach out some of the iodine it gains transmission. So my initial reaction is that you may have leached some of the iodine out of the PVA, and into the stripper. Uh oh. I would therefore call any change in transmittance a degradation. DOH!. But just to be clear, has the ragged areas transmittance or color changed from it's surroundings? That is the ultimate reference. For sure if they had a means of increasing transmittance like this, they would have included it in the manufacturing process. My bet is you have lost efficiency. We may be able to score one for water. Iodine is not soluble in water.

You may be seeing the stripper having migrated into the PVA and producing an oil spill effect like water. It may or may not just evaporate out.

Water may be making a bit of a comeback .

As for the alcohol showing the grain, I agree this may be because the alcohol pools inside the grain, and thus has more volume and takes longer to evaporate from there. As the alcohol flashes, the surface may almost glow (it is boiling). Just a theory. I forget, did you say the grain is everywhere? I have speculated in the past that PVA will naturally be a wavy surface.

Mark.

Quite possible. The difference is almost impercievable; at first I thought it was my mind playing tricks on me (it still may be, because the strippered are is windowed in cellophane: this is a well-known optical illusion that increases contrast).

I am going to check with a laser pointer on the next data retrieving session. Because the light of the laser is coherent, I think we can check the efficiency by rotating the pointer along its axis until we get minimum intensity, and the compare the two PVA regions.

What is wierd is that the pixel array in the glass substrate seems "sharper" somehow in the strippered region. Words fail me, and indeed my eyes may be too - because it is REALLY splitting hairs and may be an optical illusion. The test continues...

The PVA ragged, and PVA untreated areas are not adjacent to each other so it is difficult to say.

Believe it or not, I actually WANT h20 to win; it is a more elegant, cheaper, easier solution. We just gotta make sure its safe ...



So by this, it implies that Mikau's "TAC" layer was not permeable to water? In these situations, stripper should still work if it can break down the "TAC" layer.

NOW YOU TWO, SONIC AND MARK, KILL ME, both jumping back and forth on me is like trying to keep up with a monkey who's manic depressive!! But hey whatever kills the antiglare I suppose..hehehehehe
sim

Either that, or his uses an oil based adhesive.

The problem is that if the layer is not TAC (cellulose based) it could be impermeable to stripper as well.

jonjandran has apparently shown this.

Mark.

Man... that polarizer's been in that ammonia for like 36 hours and I still can't separate it. I tried to get under it and peel it up like mark said but it just won't come off. Meanwhile it seems to be dissolving so it won't last much longer.

Wierd.

You know I still have the HP panel with the antiglare attached.

You want me to try something new Mark.

1. Water --- No go. (Dunk and Rag Method)
2. Stripper -- No go. ( 3 different types of stripper)
3. Mothers Mag Polish -- Did quite good actually.

Whats 4 and 5 gonna be.....

well, I can say for sure that the polarizers from polarization.com work pretty well... one thing that I did notice is that nothing can come between the polarizer and the LCD... not the fresnel, not even a layer of lexan xl10... both lead to off-colors... right now it is attached to the goove side of the fresnel and working quite well... my panel is the CMV-520D...

clarity has improved dramatically... focus has improved as well... i'm not sure about overall brightness... I think this is slightly better, but the picture quality is great... deeper colors, whiter whites...


pic showing the corner of the polarizer inserted between the fresnel and LCD... trying to find the correct orientation of the polarizer before cutting to shape... (this is a black screen with the LCD "out of sync" error in the center)

Click to view attachment

screenie of a LL "standard"...

Click to view attachment

overall i'm very happy with the polarizer replacement. the Polarization.com polarizer trasmissive orientation was parallel to the width, so it took a little bit to cut it correctly... not too hard, but moving around a large sheet of polarizer that all it wants to do is roll up is kinda bothersome... mostly because you can scratch it pretty easily... although I don't see any scratches on my projection.


... now I just got to figure out my damn light dimming issue... yesterday when I had my new 17" panel installed the light looked significantly dimmer... today the bulb seems to be at full brightness... I really need to get me a lux meter... if for nothing else to prove to myself that i'm not loosing my mind...

thats exactly how i mounted my polarizer gadget.

nice photo

GadgetSmith, can you post your method and results at this link especially the model and brand of the polar you used. Please read the intro for what is needed. Thanks.
sim
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=


mike, am I to understand you also changed your polar cause if you did can you also post at the thread too? Thanks.
sim
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=

[edit] Sorry Mark



Maybe some day their will be a Pola Bear shoot out?

There is going to be some who will want to or need to buy new polarizers and it would help to know the best ones.

Has any one found a source for the LG polarizers?

edit: No worries arizonavideo.If this is the same impenetrable panel:

#4: Micro-Mesh.
#5: Some sort of encapsulation. We should figure out how to do an automotive style clear-coat paint job to our panels (spray, then wet sand).

Micro-mesh is sandpaper that amongst other things, is used by aircraft mechanics to polish up their windshields. I know from first hand experience that pilots hate scratched windshields . So it must be a great product. It cuts to 1 micron wide. I feel that sandpaper is the way to go because it will not cut the valleys as much as rubbing compound. Only the peaks.

I would try as many different solvents and chemicals you have lying around. There is a bit of method to this madness, but the bottom line is just to try stuff and see what we learn.

I would say try mineral spirits, but unfortunately I have not been able to get Mineral Spirits to permeate TAC. Seems it can only seep in at the edges.

It just looks to me like we have some impenetrable anti-glare's out there. Mikau has had his soaking in Ammonia for a long time, and apparently it won't budge. This leads me to believe we need to adapt an encapsulation and polishing technique. PEEK is the way to go as far as polish right now. I have a really good feeling about Micro-Mesh.

I could have sworn someone said they had micro-mesh on order a while back. It's the only reason that I haven't bought any. I am really looking forward to it's results.This is somewhat expected, but so much with Lexan. Is it a very noticeable difference? Did you try re-orienting the polarization axis when placing beyond these items?Great. I don't want to alarm you, but it seems it is possible that brightness will not be as good with polarizer removal. The reflections off the polarizers inner and outer surface are said to be more substantial than we though. We have no confirmation of this, though.

Looks great. One things for sure, colors, and clarity will improve no matter what.

Any problems with fresnel grooves?

Mark.

Mark: I tried the rag method again, same test piece. Again while it was laminated to plexiglass it had gone thru 4 hours of water, then 12 hours with xylene and I couldnt get it up with fingernail. So I now tried....now don't laugh, Fabreze (smells good) for 12 and still coundn't get a lift but I went for broke and used a exacto knife and it gave like several pieces of ripped paper. No grain, but it's hard to tell what did it. So, currently I'm ragging it again in Fabreze for the rest of the night. Ingredients of Fabreze are: water, alcohol, odour eliminator derived from corn, fragrance.
sim

dam, I smell good!

... sorry.The guideline with water is 12 hours. I haven't heard of untreated water taking less than 5. It goes from not working at all, to butter in a very short period.

I thought Febreze vaporizes?

edit just took a closer look at that ingredients list. You should be left with water in the end anyway. The alcohol will evaporate off fairly quickly, and the other stuff may not permeate the TAC. You still should give the full rag technique a try.

edit #2 Its fine if it came up in several strips. As long as it came up, that is all that is expected. My original quarter panel test took at least 5 strips, but I was of the mindset that as long as it was off, I didn't care how long it took, so I made little effort to keep it in one piece. It still took at most 5 minutes. note the strips tear from the edges, it is not a forceful thing.

Mark.

I forgot to ask if there was a difference between the color shift in front of Lexan and the color shift with the condenser fresnel. Just trying to figure out how viable triplet mounting is with a pristine polarizer. What is your impression? Is it just slightly off, or really bad?No worries.

Mark.

heh not to be an ass, but mine was off in 3, no trouble whatsoever

it really varies

12:00AM Test Check

Stripper on bare PVA: 29 hours. No change in grain. Some pitting?

Stripper on a/g: 29 hours. Area around stripper blistered badly. Begining to attack a/g.

Rag soak on bare PVA: 23 hours. No change in grain. Some pitting?

Note: there is what appears to be pitting in both samples, but it is VERY hard to tell. The surface is extremely tacky and is picking up lint from the tissues and q-tips used to wipe the area. Cleaned the surface several times, a few small pits remain in both stipper and water test areas.

Continuing all tests ...

I need sleeeeep - Goo'nite y'all

Pitting? Sounds like we may be able to blame that on all the cleanups at least. Hope no more forms.

My rag test has gone for 33 hours now. There is a watermark around the edges again. This one I think is deferent than before, though. I left the rag a bit too wet this time, so I don't think this will evaporate away. It had a meniscus around the edge, so there might as well have been a droplet. The rest of the soak rectangle seems to show no damage.Oh yeah, I forgot about the ridiculous one .

Do you think you could edit your method on the other page to not say that you layed the rag over the entire panel (it is over the entire analyzer, leaving a bit of space so no water dribbles over the edge of the analyzer). I don't want people getting the wrong idea. I am going to take some macro shots of the method as SIM has with stripper so there is no confusion.

GregEast: could you do the same?

SIM: do you think you could put a disclaimer in that first post? That thread should be short enough that it will actually be effective.

Mark.

Sim,
yes I will get around to adding my results to the other post... however my results are not exactly stanard... I started with stripper and ended up with full nudity... (I blame it on my impatience and lack of experience at the time...)


Mark,
I use a fresnel - lexan sandwich for the collimator... fresnel is actually on the lamp side... this is so the lexan is on the groove side, which is the way the fresnels bend, therefore the lexan prevents fresnel bending. (down side no UV protection for fresnel, but ok for LCD)

I started with the new polarizer between the fres and lexan... It was so bad I thought I had installed the polarizer wrong... then I thought I had cut it in the wrong direction. Then I switched the lexan and polarizer around... all of these led to "off colors"... and I mean *really* off... like the polarizer being turned 180°. With the polarizer before the fresnel (lamp > lexan > polarizer > fresnel) I got those "glowy" edges that elken was referring to... I'm not sure if they were at the top and bottom (as I run a 16:9 screen thru powerstrip) but they were very evident on the left and right. I did not try to rotate the polarizer when mounted between the fres and lexan as I had already cut the polarizer into a rectangle the size of the fresnel... but... now that i'm relieved to have it back working again I plan to run some tests with a.) the new polarizer and b.) with some of the original polarbear. I will run these at different orientations between the lexan and fres.

Could the UV protective sheet on the lexan be acting as a kind of polarizer ? ... i'm not sure exactly how a UV protective layer works... is it kind like a wave plate ?

I did read the post about light loss in a separate polarbear, but i'm not too concerned... as I've said, brightness seems to not have changed much (I know, not very quantitative, but someday i'll get a luxmeter... maybe ?!), but sharpness is *much* better... and color saturation is improved.

yes it is acting as a reflective polarizer,,,, heheh call it super twisted light effects the U/V sheet that is...
found that in my first testing of various positions of polars...

in fact I stated that about 100 pages ago,, hmmm wow,, long time ago...

clive

Done. Added the obligatory Darla picture as well.

Greg

ah yes, i do remember (kinda)... but it wasn't that long ago, 100 pages.... about 4-5 days ago only... LoL... really though, you were doing so many things in such a sort period... very confusing days those were in the first few days of naked panels...

... wonder if I used one of these setups if it wouldn't work...

fresnel > polarbear > glass
OR
fresnel > UV sheet > polarbear > glass (or lexan no UV)

...

ok

measurements complete,,

stripped a brand new clone of my BenQ 17" A/G intact

used a spectra physics light meter accurate to .001% at 1µW

"dunked" in PJ precise lighting conditions, and temperature running at 26° C.

differential reading on pure video white, measured at 12 points, then averaged, @ 49 % increase, this is well over original eyeball statement, back at about page 15..

the other colours decending can be extrapolated according to wavelenghts..

this is more than I expected, but not surprising, irrespective of the extra surfaces involved which barely registered, in fact the U/V sheet itself lost more than 12% of light transmitted thru light system, this was more than 7% more than a piece of normal house glass @ 4mm thick..

with polar bear mounted behind triplet,, despite that position being disliked, I have found it produced the best results of all, this is with split or unsplit optics,, after solving glowies issue,,

these tests also resolved quite a few other facts about arc size and position of lamp relative to condensor fresnel too.. its all about Σ=mC² and super-twists

oh another point, so as not to contaminate the tests,, no reflector used at all..

ummm the new panel is now stripped of a/g,, so that was a once off set of tests,, a proud new owner now has it,,

it was by pure chance someone brought a panel to me for modification,, with a new smarts PCB from a 20" high tech LCD panel, with all PJ features builtin,, he wanted me to interface it to the BENQ, with a LVDS cable,,, heheheh I showed him the light gain,,,, of enhanced panel,, within 30 mins,,, he had a brand new disrobed 17" BenQ,, gawd manufacture date oct2005,,, out goes the warranty forever,,

mind you he was mortified at process of disrobing,,,, but was so impressed by "redunk" showing ,, "he said he nearly spent $15,000 to buy a commercial job", (which did not look as good as this brewed up version).. I had talked him out of it.. LAMP cost,, the sales guy never said a word about the lamp being replaced at 2000 hrs @ $950,, heheh

So, more lamp mass equals better image? Just kidding.

What do you mean about your statement above?

Mark- heres something a little different to think about... remember when all this started lo these many years ago? on of the thoughts was to remove both polarizers to reduce the heat load on the LCD ... well I now have both polarizers removed on my panel(sue to , shall we say "extreme fumblefingers" on my part?) ... got some small polars from surplus shed...
I was amazed the panel/FFCs were intact and working at all actually...they're tougher than they look sometimes ;-) anyway , using the SS polars on both sides, contrast seems to be way down, or another way to describe it might be to say that the screen looks really washed out ...thoughts? its a pixo 15" panel, about 5 years old I believe... both front and rear panels were AG covered(or at least diffused by something), the rear panel polar/layers seemed to be thinner than the front AG side .... it came up in very small pieces, very brittle(after a couple of hours of stripper which worked very poorly).... it was a sacrificial panel anyway(looking at getting another one...maybe we should start another thread to complement the "Compatible Monitors" thread "AntiGlare Strippable Monitors"

there are very specific new distances, lamp to condensor (split and unsplit) gaps between fresnels and lcd panel etc,,, more so the tolerances, due to better transmission,,, which were hidden by antiglare layer,, now brought out clearly into the light,, (pun intended),,

have to sort out all the cryptic notes to qauntify, properly

with split optics,,,, the virtual LCD image position has to be very carfully considered, the old way does not cut it anymore due to collision of focal points,, while triplet focus's on virtual image, it is also firing at condensor fresnel,,, which if in range will show the "onions layers"

oh gawd eleken dictonary hits again.. sorry shrek on mind,,, heheheheh "layers"

Thanks. That's an amazing increase!!

What kind of U/V filter are you using?

none at all,,, light meter did not detect any at all below 375 Nm


EDIT:::: meter has spectral filters,,, used 200 nM to 450 nm filter


just U/V 'A'

the heat shield is old scanner glass panel,,, glass blocks nearly all U/V abc rays

just to add, I have now moved on, to the whole picture (pun intended again)

because removing the A/G, is only ¼ of the whole game..

changes all the rules, blurred by the "frosty the snow man" layer, which are now melted away, ergo revealing a whole new set of enhancements.. and also aligment procedures,,, which I am still trying varing combos,, using telescope aligment procedures,, back to the old days

That is what I suspected about glass.

DJ

think about the old barber shops,, with their U/V lighted sterilisers,,

GLASS doors,, U/V rays are so short,, umm in effect diffuse thru refraction,,

Quartz, is another U/V blocker to,,, but phewy,, produces Ozone,,, with U/V impact,,
used as purifiers in hospitals, that one is..

I used to play with 50 watt U/V lasers,,, geez had some fun with those babies

Elken, are you saying that by using my lexan heat shield which is UV treated I might have little more light being held back and not being transmitting in my pj? Also, are you also saying I can just replace my lexan with regular glass (I really prefer this instead) and there would still be some protection from UV plus all transmitted light will be gained?
sim

mik,, I am not sure about removal of rear polarizer, due to the fact that I think there are layers tailored to meet requirements of individual panel and its structure of liquid and colour/black masks,,

My venture into that with poor old lappy, proved it,, way back hmmmm 100 plus pages ago,,,

the alignment of polarization I suspect may be due to the aforementioned glass internal layout,,, this is an educated guess thru logic,, besides rear removal has no gain, in my books

Sim,,

not normal glass,,, I used old a4 size scanner, glass,, which by logic is tempered..

it has been in operation since july,, no ill effects at all

is it just me,, or do these posts self edit or what??????

my response I swear to SIM was new post grrrrrrr

dammmm they do,, grrrrr

Well guys I went to the hardware store today and bought my stripper (its gell variety) and spatchular. Ill be joining the club on the weekend with hopfully successfull results.

One thing I dont understand, how is it the stripper doesnt eat the polariser as well as the antiglare?

The roomie is so addicted to projecter the white line is bothering him. He says he will buy a new LCD. We had a cmv-520D, any suggestions on what we should get?

Hopefully something that is water/stripper compatable.

Stripper is primarily Methylene Chloride which attacks TAC (layer directly below a/g layer), but is relatively benign on PVA (polarizer material). Make sure you lightly sand before applying the stripper.

Test Update: 9:00 AM

Stripper on bare PVA - 38 Hours : NO Change.

Stripper on a/g - 38 Hours : Has finally cut through to the polarizer. Will stop this test at this point.

Rag Soak on bare PVA 32 Hours: NO change

Mark, this is getting ridiculous. Are we close to concluding that BOTH of these are safe? Continuing for now. BTW, pitting was contamination on the surface layer of the PVA, imbedded due to tackiness; gone now. X-Transmittance still needs to be checked.

Also, did your watermarks ever dissipate? Try a swab of alcohol or acetone accross the surface - took care of all my marks (well, all except one Mark
- hehe )

Heck, why don't you just get a glared panel instead, no need to rip, stripper or polish. Just take it out of it's casing and plug it in.

sim

Because the yellow whites are not tolerable.

Ok, I must of missed something here. The glared panels are not producing the richness of colors as compared to antiglared ones that have been stripped or replaced polars? I thought this was brought up back then that newer panels coming out with glared may be the ticket for future pjs. Gonna have to do some more searching now...sigh
sim

OHHHHH

I thought you meant leave the panel stock, with antiglare.

I forgot about those glare panels.

My bad

I will try to paint strip remove the AG on my CMV-520D this weekend. I have a few questions:

1. Where are you finding the gel paint stripper? A quick search of hardware stores' websites shows nothing.

2. Am I correct when I say the first step is to lightly sand the panel with 220 grit. Next, apply a coat of stripper, wait 30-45 minutes, then squeege it off. Finally, clean up stripper residue with denatured alcohol.

1. Found mine 'Klean Strip Stripper - 15 min fast acting' from Lowes hardware, some found theirs at walmart. Sonic puts his bet on JASCO PREMIUM PAINT & EPOXY STRIPPER http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ic=7882&st=2012.

2. Yes sanding is definately needed, but remember antiglare is thin so light pressure and dont crease or fold sandpaper, just round it off on your index finger, any sharp edges and you may marr the polar underneath, more scratches more penetration so small circular sanding. May take less than 30 min. try and learn, squeegee may be better than plastic scrapper. I used denatured alchy and dont forget to take heed of the overflow if it gets behind the other polar on the other side.

Good luck.
sim

(Edit) Also, we'd appreciate you posting your method and results here after your done. Read for info needed, thanks.
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=

Depends on wether it is made of birefringent material (cellophane, quartz). If so, then yes, you will be seeing some phase problems. The UV film would then be referred to as a wave plate. Not a polarizer. The fresnel is said to have some polarization properties due to its flat, reflective internal surfaces. Light that bounces off a reflective surface gets split into images representing both it's vertical and horizontal wave energy at 90 degrees in the reflection.

The only non-destructive phase shift would be a full half wave. That would mean that the linear polarization would be intact, but would be twisted 90 degrees. Any other phase shift and the linear polarization would be effected (converted to circular or elliptical polarization). Anything other than linear polarization will pass through a linear polarizer. This would really wash out the image.

If the film is acting as a half wave plate, then all you need is to reorient the polarizer to recover the colors. There should be no loss of quality in this case.What part of a billion years ... Yeah we are at least close to concluding that. I want to know how your extreme overdue test went. I have to say, I buggered up my sample area anyway. I accidentally used an eyeglass bag that I forgot had toothpaste and other polish ideas embedded in it. It dulled out the surface of the PVA a bit. It's still very shiny.

42 hours direct PVA water exposure: seemingly zero damage.The watermark is still there. I blame the pooling of water at the edges of the rag as mentioned. I also blame that I did not use distilled water. Where the actual rag sat things are fine.

If your extreme overdue test went good, and we can be sure nothing has happened, then I think it's pretty safe to say I know how I will be doing this . Unless someone has success with Micro-Mesh before then.

edit: believe it or not, I still worry about both techniques. But this has been a very comforting exercise.

edit #2: I wonder if there is any cleanup needed at all? Maybe it would be best to just peel it up in a fairly dust free area, and let it be? Did anyone try this?

Mark.

:angry: Perfect! Maybe I should consider a polarizer with an adhesive back.

As gadget and I have both noted already, the image looks good. I used a 4$ polarizer and cant tell a difference, the colors are just cleaner then before.

Again, read whatever pdf on the internet to your hearts content. Our results might be 2 cases that skip the rule.

ok... first test, something simple... compare glass to Lexan XL10.

fresnel > polarbear > glass (top part of pic)
fresnel > polarbear > glass > Lexan XL10 (bottom part of pic)

Click to view attachment



next... turn the lexan to see if can correct phase shift ....

Click to view attachment

continue rotating lexan until i've removed all phase shift...

Click to view attachment

so, it appears that the UV film is interferring with phase, and simply rotating the polarizer would have been able to fix this problem... the biggest problem I see with this is actually finding that angle, then cutting the polarizer... at least with the glass I can order 45° polarbear film, or I can get 90° and cut at a know 45° angle (as i've done in my case). according to elken's lastest readings a simple layer of glass removes most harmful UV's so the LCD is protected... the glass after the polarizer is nice as it keeps the polarbear nice and flat... not that i'm seeing much of a difference in image quality though...



Oh yea, Mark the subject matter was just for you... I know how you feel about Nemo... and Jello... kinda funny, in order to find the link to the nemo and test grids I had to do a search for "Jello" !! ... if you hadn't put in that little comment i'd probably still be looking for that link !!

. So that's why I wrote that.

Here are some preliminary macro photographs of what the water technique entails. It is really quite simple, but I felt it should have some pictures. I like pictures .

First, a wide shot of the playing field. You can see the pixel grid, the surrounding mask, then the edge of the polarizer laminate, the glass substrate, and the grey strip is conductive rubber found on some panels. Very sensitive stuff. And bottom left is an FFC . I figured I might as well show how this is done with those kinds of circumstances. The red wires are just to help give the picture depth and reflections .

Click to view attachment

For those who are unaware, the top piece with the curved corner here is the polarizer laminate. It's called a laminate because it is comprised of many different layers, despite the fact that it appears to be just one oval cornered chunk of plastic glued to the substrate. The reality is there are anywhere up to around 6 layers comprising the polarizer laminate. If you peel this whole curved corner layer off, you won't get a picture. We must selectively remove only the anti-glare. And to give an idea of just how thin this anti-glare layer is, that is the edge of a Canadian penny at left:

Click to view attachment

And here is a shot of the paper towel layed down. It is thought to be imparative that the towel be close enough to the edges that there will not be dry edges for the peel up, but not so close that water has a chance to spill over, and seep in at the edge of the laminate effecting other layers. We also want to make sure that no water gets anywhere else on the panel or electronics. I have left around a millimeter here, as I know the water will seep horizontally through the TAC as well. It should therefore have spread right to the edges once it reaches the PVA. Keep in mind, this is not a dripping wet rag. Only just saturated.

Click to view attachment

I should have the rest of the shots in around 12 hours .

edit: didn't go as close as I wanted to with pic #2. Fixed now.

Mark.

Interesting Gadget, even though you got the shift corrected there still seems to be some sort of discoloration as compared to glass. Guess I'll look into replacing my lexan to tempered which I wanted to in the first place but everybody seemed to be crying 'UV protection'. Would just any tempered glass from any hardware store be sufficient or is there a specific type?
sim

(Edit) It just amazes me how much we have learned about our panels and transmittancy from the simple removal of antiglare. Excellent and outstanding work guys

Wow thanks Mark. I'm in the process of planning (IE: a lot of research and reading) and I stumbled upon this thread a few days ago and your last post with the pictures more than answered a lot of my questions regarding the techniques involved in doing this. Can't wait to get my projector up and going especially with this "enhancement". I look forward to seeing the results

Finished stripping the lcd. Looks good. Held the old polarizer sheet behind it and it still appears to be working ok. What a nightmare...

Two small problems. One, in a few select spots, the knife seems to have left a few hair thin scratches. Barely visible but may be very visible in the projection. These should be removable with a good polish but I don't want something thats going to leave a greasy mark forcing me to polish the entire thing. Suggestions?

Ok, problem two may be slightly more serious. A small spot on the front polarizer of my lcd, (the part laying down) appears slightly scuffed up. It looks like while I was polishing and scraping, the lcd was sliding back and forth a little bit, causing it to scuff slightly. I had a layer of cardboard under it but that must of done it. However I'm not totally sure they are scuffs, it might just be a smudge. First I want to try cleaning it to see if its a smudge. What is safe to use on the polarizer? Is rubbing alchohol okay?

If it is a scuff, what should I do?