I in no way want to cause controversy, but I think requests like this should not be answered.

It would only take someone reading the last 15-20 pages to get pretty much caught up on the whole situation. Mark has done an excedingly good job of reiterating what the status of the research is every time a new discovery is made, so getting caught up isn't that difficult.

It just bothers me that you guys (Mark, Sonic, Sim, Elken, Mikau, etc...) have devoted many, many hours on this research, plus countless lcds, to get to where you are now. Yet it is too much of a bother for some people to spend an hour or so reading a large portion of the posts to understand what's going on.

It is my belief that you all have worked very hard on this, and that your time is better spend discussing/solving the problem at hand, not bringing other people up to speed.

I for one would like to thank you guys for all your hard work, and if I have any questions about what's going on, ...I'll read a little more.

Cheers gents.

Rhino

Yeah but at a certain point we have to be reasonable. We can't keep expecting people to just read the entire thread, its pushing 2,500 posts. Longest post on lumenlab.

What worries me is it seems all lcds are differant. I honestly don't know if we'll ever have a finalized solution for everyone. And new experiments and ideas will never stop coming.

Perhaps a mod who knows the subject (not me) should go through the thread and delete junk and duplicated information.

GADGET,,, can you tell me which new polarizer you have,, and forgive me for being a bit confused,, but you have stripped your 'polar bear' totally from LCD,,

and if I understand order of elements is?

lamp, heat shield, fresnel, (polar, new) then lcd panel etc?


ROX,, it is a laser meter,, and measurements are purely in µWatts to Watts.. and 250 nanometers to 400 nanometers filters were simply to exclude all wavelengths outside that range..

MARK,, the commercial PJ's use mini mono lcd panels with solid dicrohic filters, that is why their tranmission thru is higher.

the colour mask is the highest blocker, so to speak,,
when i get a chance i will take a photo of a panel I split in half, to show TFT layer (the transistor junctions), and the colour mask etc

Once again, and it has been mentioned that another thread will eventually be created once a sure fire way of removing all antiglare regardless of model, type of monitor you have has been determined. This thread is solely for those willing to experiment and record findings and develope better ways to come up with that exact sure fire way. And none of this info should be altered for the pleasure of those impatient and unwilling to understand why they have to read this entire thread so that they can get their 'FIX' and have a great pj. We are not stopping anyone here from proceeding on their own and at their own risk. It has been proven that antiglare is what you should remove and how you do is really up to you.

Don't you understand fellas? We are suggesting ways, we are not asking or telling you to proceed with it. We don't want to be blamed for your attempts and failures. We are showing what we have done openly and perhaps by believing in what we are trying to achieve here you may decide on your own and join in the experiment in order to find that right method.

Mark has put in alot of his time again, again repeating his gospel on different approaches and explaining all your questions each time even mine. The least we can all do is take the time to read and understand thus how far we came.
sim

Okalee-dokaley. Final test results in -

Stipper on bare PVA: 50 Hours - No change. There was some staining of the PVA under the cellophane mask-off areas, but I think that was due to the non-PVA-safe solvents I was using to clean the surface at every check interval. These probably made their way under the tape where they were trapped, and corroded the PVA.

Distilled H20 rag on bare PVA: 44 Hours - No change. "Pitting" was merely surface contamination. Cleaned away with alcohol.

Marathon Rag session on a/g: 52 Hours - Absolutely NO damgage. The a/g layer slid off like grease from a lawyers lips. The PVA looks good enough to eat of off. No sign of any grain. Just pure delicious mirrored PVA. Mark, I've got to hand it to you; this method certainly gets my Mark of approval for safety and ease.

X-transmittance check needs to be done, but I can't imagine finding anything adverse, because the surfaces look pristine.

Preliminary conclusion: The initial grain that surfaced must have been a result of this polarizer being stressed during manufacture of the panel. Even with that, the amount of grain that showed up would never have been noticed in a projection. Stripper and water via the rag method are both safe it seems. No one would ever suscept their panel for this length of time to these chemicals, so I think, from a chemical standpoint, we are safe. Now as to weather the PVA layer minus the surface TAC will delaminate under the thermal stress of operating in our pj's is anyone's guess. Only time will test that ...

PS: Mark, when I do my own panel, guess what method do you think I'm gonna use? Hehehe ... cool water baby! I think a good plan of attack would be to try water as a matter of course. If it doesn't work after an extended period of time, then go with the stripper. The a/g layer should slide off with minimal resistance. In all of my tests, it has never been harder than pulling cellophane tape off a slightly rough surface (very easy).

Question,,,

who so far has bought new polarizer sheets????

I have gone thru some phases of testing with new units...


DO NOT excuse caps,, but dont buy the adhesive version, at all

it is does not work for our purposes for two distinct reasons..

1. does not fully polarize.....

2. you will never get it to stick without artifacts showing in projection..

only purchase non adhesive version,,, that works better than my original BenQ 17" stripped version..

if you dont follow, this advice,, it is at your own risk and waste of money too..

It seems your panel may not have been the ultimate in water sensitivity. oztang found his polarizer apparently completely dissolved when dunked? After what we have both seen with these tests, that is so hard to stomach, but we are waiting to hear back from him the details. Hopefully this is just an issue of dunking, and noticing damage as others have. . Of course, keeping the water cool and using an actual rag technique (not a dunk) may have had very different results. At least for the first little while he says things went right ?

He wrote this in the water warning thread that Mikau set up. So hard to believe the grades could be that different? What a soap opera .Your welcome .Ingredient #1: Reflective polarizer DOH!.

Ingredient #2: Quarter Wave plate DOH!.

.

It looks like 3M may manufacture standalone compensation film as part of the Vikuiti line as well. I had to read through the HTML of this page:

http://cms.3m.com/cms/US/en/2-136/cRFFFFO/view.jhtml

There are actually a few products mentioned in there that aren't shown on the page. A bit of googling and I found a sheet of 3M quarter wave plate (19" x 25" ):

http://www.apioptics.com/linear8.htm

and finally a source for single sheets of 3M dichroic polarizer (they do exist ):

http://www.apioptics.com/linear10.htm

Still not reflective, though. And no pricing so far as I can see.

edit it would be interesting to see what stripper would have done to his polarizer.

Mark.

I removed the polar from my BenQ 567sv2 and attached the non-adhesive 3dlens polar, the one with the highest specs (POA1) and I am very impressed. Even had to reduce brightness in the display driver.

The polar is just attached with tape to the back of the LCD. I was a bit worried there would be light reflections going on between the polar and LCD but no such thing occurred. Tried sandwiching it between Lexan and fresnal but got light(is that "the glowies"?) down one side.

Since the polar is a plastic material I decided, after some experimenting, it would be best on the coolest side of the airgap, up against the LCD where it belongs.

We saw LOTR, 'Return Of The King' last night(again). Using Zoom Player with DScaler codec and FFDshow under VMR9 and the "new" LL projector, holy cow, is that impressive.

Screenies Please! Did you happen to take pics of LOTR before the removal and after so we can what a difference it made for your projection.

THE PANEL FROM H3LL UPDATE...........

Decided to try again with the water and stripper

Water..... 10 more hours.... NOPE NOTHING !!!

Stripper.... JASCO from Lowes... 1 hour and the antiglare scraped right off
Here's the process.

1. Lightly sanded with 400 grit sandpaper.
2. Applied Jasco Stripper with a napkin on the Lcd .
3. Waited 1 hour
4. Scraped up with a plastic putty knife. 99% of the antiglare wiped off.
5 Re-applied stripper for 30 minutes.
6. Wiped off stripper and cleaned with Mineral Spirits

And presto ..... A Lcd with no antiglare.

I'm guessing that the other 3 strippers from Lowes were just lower quality or had different ingredients in differing amounts...

But this does help to maybe show that if one method doesn't work then another method should.

Just use stripper that is known to work. And sand lightly first to speed upi the process.

No I didn't. My post was simply replying to someone who wanted to know who had purchased a replacement polar.

Why don't you try it yourself.

brian,, trust us,,

it makes a very signifigant difference,,

Not that many people are going with a total polar bear replacement. Most are trying to strip off the antiglare.

So we're just looking for some feedback from people who have done different things.

All the pics we can get will help tremendously.

So does this mean that you never tried sanding the surface before using water?

This is very strange. I should point out that getting the anti-glare to flip up can take some persuasion. The first time I did the water soak I didn't think it worked. I picked at the corner for a while, and then it flipped up. Is it possible that you just didn't poke at it enough?

Awesome that you found a product that seems to work for you.

People need to be careful with using various types of stripper. The only one that has been tested as seemingly PVA safe is Jasco Premium Paint & Epoxy Stripper. That said, PVA has quite good chemical resistance in general. I have found this to be a quality it is known for. But remember, there is also iodine in there.

Mark.

Need we say anymore....cause I can't see why we would be promoting this to you all if we (who have done it) didn't beleive it with our own eyes. In honesty, I want you all to experience the full potential of what your pj is capable of doing unless you release it of it's antiglare.
sim

For those looking for an encapsulation material (samuraijack); what about PVA (PVOH) glue? Elmer's carried clear gel at one time but it may be only available in blue now. If it can still be found colorless it might work well.

If it didn't self level it could be thinned with water. The application would be tricky to prevent air bubbles and dust though.

Oh I did poke and prod and pull, etc, etc. I mostly used a razor on the edge and got it to flake up but it wouldn't pull up in one sheet. And it definately wasn't easy.

Look back i even posted a pic.

And yes I sanded half the panel before the water tests AND the stripper tests. This test was done on the other half of the panel with 400 grit and the JASCO stripper.

Not a bad idea . We know PVA must be pretty transparent, and it would be keeping with the theme of things .

Pretty funny, http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread/t-41383-p-1.html (can I post that thread?) has some people who at one point tried a light recycler. Sounds like they didn't get a full order wave plate, or the right kind of DRPF, though .

These guys have it more right, but the design I have in mind has the wave plate in front of the lamp. Not the best for transmittance, but glass wave plates (at least possibly capable of taking the heat) are quite expensive:

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread....9808&highlight=

This company claims to have DRPF as individual sheets:

http://e-insite.freetradezone.com/pagedetail/6062/34

In fact, a number of companies claim to have the 45 degree model if you google the product code: 98-0440-0891-4

Sorry, I really should split this into a new thread now.

Mark.

A 3M Vikuiti dichroic polarizer:

Name: HN42HE
Single: 42
Parallel: 34
Crossed: 0.002

That is awesome. Turns out 3M bought the Polaroid polarizer film devision . FWIW, The entire film division of 3M is apparently called Vikuiti. Not just display enhancement films.

You may be able to find that model here:

http://www.knightoptical.co.uk/acatalog/Po...ardtypeHN42.htm

I'm sure there are other sources. Maybe this film doesn't need to be purchase in packs of ten.

edit http://www.apioptics.com/linear10.htm has it, but only in 7" x 7" squares.

Mark.

I think what SJ was trying to say was there is a group of members that wouldn’t want the absolute best possible treatment at the expense of risk. Tape works and it hasn’t had its index matched to air so with that reasoning another form of encapsulation should work just as the tape did but have a better application. As to the foreign particles perhaps a small clean room environment could be constructed around the a/g area. This could easily be made from serin wrap placed over the form that holds the resin in place then simply evacuate the particles using caned air.

DJ

Here’s a quarter wave retarder you could try:D .
GS
DJ

mm, the watts and lumens are not linear. The watts rate won´t be lumens rate.

I would say your tool is very precise and expensive, but I would say it is unusable for us as well.

How can it be useless,,

these were tests done under strict control conditions,, practicle versus theory is what counts..

these measurements are done as a simple measurement of difference..
using the same tool on the exact same brand of LCD,, one with and one without A/G

tis as simple as that,, as to lumens I wouldn,t even guess as what they are

they do not convert to lumens, although there is a formula to so, unreliable as it is..

well, maybe useless is not the word i should have used.

The watt increase on the measurment tool you are using is directly related to a higher output in lumens, but as i said, you can´t claim 50% brightness increase in terms of lumens.

By now, the only thing you can claim is 50% wattage increase.

edit; maybe i didn´t express right this time neither... I mean you can have more increase in lumens than the wattage increase even... I think the tool you are using is not the propper one for what we would like to meassure (brightness).

I agree with ArchibaldTuttle in what he asked in a way. If the solution or the perfect formula method for removing the antiglare is not around the corner yet, then maybe the best thing to do would be be to sum up the techniques and conclusions and start a new thread, maybe ask if users would only post if they are contributing or are going to experiment in removing the antiglare. I’m not saying this should be a Mark, Sonic, Sim, Elken, Mikau thread only but it would reduce posts and have more structure to it. I’m sure we would all benefit from it. You could still use this thread to bring others up to speed if someone wished to reply.

The new polarizer is this from polarization.com. It is the linear one without adhesive.

Yes, my a/g polarbear (lamp side) is stripped completely.

Order of elements is lamp, fresnel, lexan, polar (new), LCD panel.

(to SIM also; also a bit OT) I realize that lexan should come before fresnel for UV protection of fresnel. However, fresnel bows (due to heat) towards groove side (which are faceing LCD), so it is better for bow protection to have fresnel, lexan order.

gs

Done. This other thread has been up for some time for everybody to view. Although it was for quick reference for us to use in our research it was also something everybody can study and decide on their own which method would be best for them. I for one am not going to say that the Stripper method is the sure fire way but it worked. Not just for me but others. Mark came up with the rag method, others have tried it. But when it comes down to anyone's LCD thats up to the individual's decision which method he feels confortable with.
sim
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283&hl=

Ah...So des ne,
Thanks Gadget, that makes sense.
sim

Mark, when I did my tests, I used JASCO PREMIUM PAIN & EPOXY STRIPPER. It worked great with no visible degredation after 2 days on the bare PVA surface. Jonjordan also used JASCO. I spoke to a chemist at this company regarding this project and its safety. I think we can add that to the list of "acceptable & safe" strippers.

Yeah, I though about that . I'm not sure if it is the Lexan or the UV Film mounted to the Lexan that is acting as the wave plate.

That sheet could also be a half wave plate or anywhere in between. As long as it isn't a half wave plate it should work to some degree, but I figure circular polarization will be the most efficient. Elliptical should work, but just not as well. It would be really neat if Lexan or a UV Film takes care of that aspect of the recycler . In any case, if a second wave plate is added, then the existing ones (UV Film) would have to be mounted such that they are out of commission.

Gadget: Can you separate your UV film from the Lexan, or is the Lexan coated? Lexan will have some birefringence, but I wouldn't think that much. If you can separate it, then you could have more choice over where the polarizer goes. However, you have it optimal right now. Best to not have anything in between, and keep the polarizers in the collimated area.

Sonic: Oops. Got them mixed up.

Mark.

oooooo, that hurt
sim

As you may recall, after using the paper towel water soak method to remove the anti-glare layer from my CMV CT-529 I was able to see fresnel rings in my projections, particularly in light scenes.

I experimented with moving both fresnels to try and solve this.
- Moving the front fresnel away from the LCD panel had no affect on the visible rings.
- Moving the rear fresnel ~1/8" away from the LCD panel (toward the rear of the PJ) nad no affect.
- Moving the rear fresnel ~1/4" away made the rings disappear!

Hoping to watch an entire movie for the first time tonight since I removed the AG, I'll post an update tomorrow.

Greg

P.S. Simul8tr, I updated my post on the other thread as well to reflect this.

. I just mean that is the stripper that we crash tested. Clean Strip may have done just as well.Sweet . In total then, are you around 21.4mm (0.841") from the panel?

Mark.

Ok, I think I just found another alternative....and this is for those who are unwilling to do some research or reading and want their fix NOW!.....hehehehe


ooooooo this might bite me in the butt, but hey, at least it may prove my point.
sim
http://www.midwayautosupply.com/detailedpr...ption.asp?12071

And it would . That is anti-glare in a can. Not anti-anti-glare in a can .

Mark.

Dang it Mark, I was hopin to let it ride some more until someone either asks the question or foolishly does it.
heheheheheheh
sim

You are pure evil .

Edit not to worry. Someone probably did it in the 3 minute period between your post and mine. I hope it wasn't Mikau .

Mark.

Today I tried the paint stripper method on the CMV 520D.

I sanded the LCD with 220 grit then applied Klean Strip Stripper and left it for an hour. Scraped it off and nothing.....the antiglare was still there. I cleaned everything up and applied the stripper a second time. 2 1/2 hours later, I took off the stripper, and the antiglare is still there!

I am trying for a 3rd time with the stripper on overnight. I put WAAAY too much stripper on, and lots ran over the edges. Luckly I have the 4 edges taped off with masking tape. At least I have a nice thick coat on now.

Will let everyone know how it turns out tomorrow.

Whoa, that is strange...

First off, I wish you had some pics so I can see what we are looking at. And how well did you sand it. Also, how long have you been using your CMV in front of your lamp in your projector?
sim

When I was running tests, stripper on a/g without sanding took almost 24 hours to break down. The sanding step is crucial but it sounds like you did that. If I were you, I would approach this as follows:

If your a/g is already marred, leave the stripper on for a LONG period of time. 6-8 Hours. The PVA should not break down even if the stripper contacts it. If you are uncomfortable with that, try multiple applications of the stripper. One thing my tests showed me is that the PVA is pretty darn resistant chemically to Methylene Chloride.

Also, try JASCO brand "Premium Epoxy and Paint Stripper". This is what I did all my tests with and I have complete faith in the product after having talked to a chemist in their R&D department. It seems that Jonjordan's "titanium antiglare" was resistant to all strippers except JASCO - go figure ...

Good luck with it!

I don't have a digital camera, so no pics. I sanded for about 30 minutes, trying to get total coverage. Then, I cleaned off the "sanded residue" with denatured alcohol. I have barely used my projector due to the low brightness of it. And incase you ask, yes, I have a tempered glass heatshield.

GadgetSmith tried the same method on his CMV 520D, and had the same results as me...the AG just won't disolve. He didn't try it for an extended period though.

hmmmm, titanium antiglare....could that really exist with some monitors especially with the CMV's. What you say SonicWonder? Say, you and I fly over and help Chad annihilate this beast. Feel like a couple of 'Antiglare Busters'.

Chad, follow Sonic's advise...but I hope that the more time you keep your current stripper on for now works. Otherwise try Jasco.

SIMUL8R.....ta da da DA!!!

Finally had a chance to use the PJ for its intended purpose this evening, actually watching an entire movie :-)

This was the first time since the anti-glare had been removed. The picture looked great, the whites were whiter and it was nice and bright...nothing new there.

However, I did note one interesting change. I have a digital thermometer with the probe positioned about 1/3 of the way down the LCD panel, between the panel and the rear fresnel, in the cooling air path. Previously, this would typically show about 78 degrees F at the end of a two hour session. We watched tonight for a couple of hours and when I checked the temperature, it was at 72 degrees!

Admittedly, this is a just one sample but no other changes in conditions had taken place, other than the anti-glare removal. The PJ is mounted in my basement, where it's a very steady 65 degrees ambient.

Might the removal of the anti-glare be reducing the amount of light that's getting reflected, or maybe scattered, back into the rear of the PJ?

Greg

I mentioned the 3M dichroic polarizer: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=98640 but I forgot to mention one of the best parts: it has an anti-reflective optical coating.It has been speculated that removing layers from the panel lessens the thickness of material that the heat needs to conduct out of.

The polarizer (not the analyzer) will be absorbing over half the light (including infrared) that makes incidence with the panel. It converts all of this to heat. With this surface exposed, we can cool it directly.

But if the thermometer is not in contact with the panel, then I don't see how that big of a change could be registering. I don't think the PVA will be less reflective than the anti-glare. Weird .

Mark.

I'm always ready to kick some a/g butt!

BTW: Chad, if your antiglare is not marred already, I would try ragging with distilled water. If the stripper doesn't attack your a/g, I doubt it will be water permeable, but it's always worth a shot. At the very worst, the a/g won't come up and your panel will be the same as it was before the ragging.

As for the stripper, most polycarbonates are dissolved by Methylene Chloride. In fact, it is used as a solvent in the manufacturing process so I would be surprised if the stripper doesn't work - it just needs enough time.

I was not expecting there to be a change in the temperature, I just checked the thermometer after we were done watching like I always do. I'll keep an eye on it the next few times we watch a movie and report back to see if it consistenly stays lower.

Greg

GadgetSmith had the 520D. He just yanked the polarizer off, but found that water permeated no problem. This panel has never been ragged:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=96898

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=97344

I would say you are probably safe to rag that panel. Don't hold me to it, but he is basically describing everything that we know to be an issue with a full dunk. Things that seem to clear up with the rag technique.

If you choose to rag (taking the whatever risk there may be) I would check on it quite early. His dunk apparently worked at 2 hours. Ragging will take longer than a dunk, but my dunked pieces didn't loosen up until around the 5 hour mark. That is what the 10-12 hour guideline was based on. As you know there are photo's of the process just back a few pages. But don't use a razor, use sticky tape attached to the polarizer to peel it up from the corner.

edit and don't forget, gadget did have success with stripper after he removed the polarizer.

Mark.

Mark,

I replied to this this morning but the new engine was having problems and ate my post :angry: .
Here it is again:

I am surprised by Oztang's results of complete dissolution of the PVA, but not entirely worried by it. As you know, every solid has a solubility limit in water. At a given temperature and pressure, only so much material can dissolve in any given volume of water. Add more solid material, and it will refuse to dissolve. Take for example salt; there is only so much you can add to a cup of water before it reaches the solubility limit - adding more salt will merely result in the bottom of the cup having a layer of salt grains.

For PVA to dissolve fully, there needs to be a sufficient VOLUME of water in contact with the surface. This is why in our tests, direct immersion of the PVA in a droplet of water resulted in deterioration (large water volume relative to surface area of PVA). The effects of solubility are highly mitigated by using a ragging technique because there is only a thin skin of water (small volume) in contact with the surface of the PVA. Once the solubility limit is reached, no further PVA will dissolve. The PVA molecules in solution do not leach up into the rag to use the additional volume of water there.

How do I know this? In my panel, PVA has a strong odor when dissolved; after a few hours of direct immersion in a cup of water, the water has a pungent odor. Now when I sniffed the rags I used for the panel (okay, keep it clean now ), only the side exposed to the PVA had that odor. My conclusion is the PVA molecules in solution are confined to the thin skin of water between the rag and the PVA. The same principle would be in effect if the rag were applied on the a/g.

In both our tests, immersion resulted in damage. But ragging did not result in deterioration even after 2 days directly on the PVA. Oztang's sample did not start to deteriorate until the TAC layer was removed (resulting in a larger volume of water directly in contact with the PVA). Although I noted damage from my first 6 hour ragging test, I could not replicate that with subsequent tests on the same panel. My conclusion is that the damage I initally saw was pre-exisiting and not a result of ragging.

My polarizer also shredded when dunked in water. I am currently trying to replicate Ozstang's results, but I may have an insufficient volume of water in the cup. The water is taking on color and a pungent odor, but the polarizer is merely shredding. Do you know if

a ) Oztang used a large volume of water?
b ) Oztang used a small piece of polarizer?

It would be very interesting to see how his hydo-sensitive polarizer reacts to ragging.

PS: In searching the web, I am finding that Methylene Chloride attacks almost ALL polycarbonates. This is good news for the stripping camp. I see stripping as a second alternative that can work if ragging fails.

Gregg,

This was actually predicted by Mark theoretically earlier if I am not mistaken. Most of the heat is generated AT the PVA as light is polarized. Without the a/g, there is one less layer for heat to conduct through before the heat is extracted by your fans.