I would contact him and ask what happened.

Mark.

tovarishrob: Regardless of how your LCD faces the lamp your still wanting to either polish or remove the anitglare if your seeking total enhancement. And that is the bottom line.

Now, as far as improvement when I took off the TAC on the rear polar, I wouldn't say 'big' but clarity has been tweaked and that's what it is all about. I was planning on trying the removing of both polars and replacement but after reading slight loss of transmittance when not adhesed to the panel I figured I'd try removing the other TAC and see how much more it can be pushed. Well, sure enough I'm quite pleased with the results.
sim

Last night I worked on removing the polarizer from the panel. I took my time (45 min), and didn't break the glass. I found out the air pockets I was talking about were areas where the stripper had somehow penetrated the polarizer and released the polarizer from its glue. The creases I saw running down the middle of the air pockets were indeed long semi-fractures in the polarizer.

Even the polarizer glue on the CMV 520D is tough stuff! I tried goo gone, rubbing alcohol, denatured alcohol, and the Jasco stripper. The stripper was the only thing to even touch it. After 1 coat on for 30 min, and another try at 2 hours, the bottom layer of glue is still there. (I've been scraping it off with the plastic putty knife). I'll try another 2 hour application tonight....it should eventually come off.

I tried cleaning the non-glue areas with water, spit, rubbing alcohol, and denatured alcohol. Everything leaves a slight residue behind, and I can see the "swirls" left behind from the application. What will clean the surface perfect? Windex?

Another question:
What will my projection look like without a polarizer? I want to test the LCD to make sure it still works, but don't want to be shocked if I don't see anything, and not know if the LCD is ruined, or if it just the lack of a polarizer.

Has anyone tried Caustic Soda (Sodium Hydroxide) to strip the A/G? Could be an alternative for the hard to strip LCDs or for glue clean up from the glass substrate.

DJ

or even domestos,, hmmm,, i wonder,, but phewy da fumes will kill ya


yeah I know

stripper works well for some..

but thus far I have done 6 strip with acetone,, and all successful,,,

oh and one water raggie method that worked too,,

I think the bottom line here is as in hair dye instructions,,, do a test first to see what happens, then go with what works,,,

but it suprises me that everyone has thus far avoided what worked first,, especially with cleanup after stripping,,, must be just an aussie thing

It won't look like anything, so don't get worried. All you will see is a white screen. Take a look at this
post. In the first pic, the white area is where the polarizer isn't the triangluar shape area is where the polarizer is.

or put on a pair of polaroid sunglasses, turn your head at 45° and presto,,

you have stealth vision..

or the screen you have that only you see...

believe it or not,, alreadytried it,, looked kinda silly to someone walking in the room, whilst watching a comedy, and all they could see was a white screen,

but you've got a light fusion screen(acrylic mirror) right? would it work with other screens too or will only mirrors retain polarization?

screen is not relevant,,, boc or white wall samo samo,,,

Hi guys, I've had a lot of work on over the past few weeks, but I have had a chance to get my PJ to Beta testing phase, just not much time to write about it. For those who are not up to speed, I have gone with the total polarbear removal and replacement. I got 2 different polars from 3dlens.com, the 'transmissive' adhesive polar and the non-adhesive version. Elken actually got a chance to test the transmissive piece I sent him before me so I haven't even bothered with that one based on his results.

I redesigned my LCD sled to accomodate the loose polar, and also to align my optics better. In testing over the past few nights I have tried a few configurations: (No quantitative numbers yet)

1. Reversed LCD, triplet polar. Worked good, much brighter than before
2. Reversed LCD, full polar taped to field fresnel - no discernable difference to first test.
(Both these tests required software 'flip' which I could not accomplish without problems. My opinion of the LCD reversal method is that it will only be acceptable if a hardware flip can be accomplished, or if you use it in a vert or 'single-folded' PJ)
3. 'Normal' LCD, full polar taped to LCD side of collimating fresnel. As I can't immediately compare 'normal' to 'flipped' LCD I can't really tell of any difference between tests 2 & 3. Both look impressive and much brighter than the diffused LCD polar. I haven't tuned my polar alignment yet either.

For all of these methods, adjusting the collimating fesnel as per Elken's suggestions is mandatory. My split optics 17" projection uses the 220 and 330 lenses from 3dlens. My field fres is cut offset to give lens shift, as well I'm using keystone. I'll be the first to admit that it still needs work, but I know I'm heading in the right direction. I have no evidence whatsoever of fresnel rings in the projection.

I've missed most of the last 25 pages, but on a quick glance through I picked up on one point that needs clarification. Elken, and any others playing around with the 3dlens non-adhesive polarbear, this is supplied with 2 protective films. It does not need soaking or treatment of any other kind. Both protective films will peel off.

The last 2 nights I have been playing around with the different setups on my test wall. just a picture, no sound. Tonight I got my act together and cleared the wall (removed TV cabinet) where the PJ will be in its final resting place. I grabbed some grey paint I had left over from the office and painted the 1600x1200 section of wall , no time for LF here, not yet anyway! I sit here now watching the Shield in glorious 75" widescreen. The PJ is sitting on the floor in front of me, nowhere near encroaching on my field of vision, the bottom of the screen is about 600mm above the floor. It's amazing the difference that adding sound actually makes to the projection also...

Chad,

Sorry to hear of your woes - we were all pullin' for ya. Just goes to emphasize the experimental nature of this work. If you are going for a total polarizer replacement, be sure to keep your damaged original, it is worth it's weight in gold (48 cents? ) in experimentation value. I think we can safely conclude:

[EDIT]: It is highly risky to use stripper on a CMV panel. Although it may be successful, it would be a first.

I really am at a loss for what happened with your panel, but we have seen this behaviour on 2 other CMV panels to date. If I had to make a wild guess, I would say that there were pre-existing fractures in the PVA where the Methylene Chloride was able to seep in and attack the rear TAC on the polarizer. Perhaps due to aggressive handling of the polarizer during maunufacture?

The rag method would seem to be the preferable option for this line of panels (although I don't know if that has been accomplished with success either as of this post).

As for testing the functionality your panel, you can use the stripped polarizer and hold it anywhere between the panel and the screen. As you rotate the piece of polarizer, you will see an image appear on screen if the panel is still functional. Do not worry about the image quality, because that can be tweaked after the polarizer replacement.

If you have a useable triplet-sized piece of polarizer available from your original, you can reverse the panel orientation and place the polarizer at the triplet ala Elken's method. Look back to the earlier threads to read how he did it.

PS: I just started a separate thread to log FAILED attempts at removing a/g so we can save people from making the same mistake in the future.

has anyone received and used the polarization.com polars? how are they working?

Anything strongly acidic or basic is considered incompatible with PVA. PVA molecules have hydroxides dangeling off of them and the molecular structure of PVA is altered with the use of caustic solutions.

Just wanting to add that I successfully remove the AG from my dell 1504fp with the samsung lcd using the wet towel technique.


I placed the lcd on a towel face up. Placed a second wet towel overtop of the AG surface. Wet down again with a cup of water. Came back in 2 hours poured more water on it. waited another hour and added last coat of water. Waited one more hour and peeled it up. Picked at the corner with a pairing knife until I could get it loose and it came up pretty much in one big sheet with minor tearing which I compensated for.

Scott

excellent! have you had time to put it back in your pj yet? if not let us know how it looks and please remember to post this info over on the other thread- http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283

ps: what is the model # of the panel itself?

Congrats! Another a/g bites the dust

PS: What did you mean by "minor tearing"? The PVA is still intact, right??

[EDIT]: Read your post on the results thread. Answered my question

mikyd1954: Thanks for reminding others to post at other thread, greatly appreciate it.
sim

per your request I will post discussion of your new thread here:


This is interesting as I used paint stripper (Savogran SuperStrip) on my CMV-520D, and although I classify my strip as a failure, it had nothing to do with the stripper eating through the PVA layer. My thoughts on the failure (penetrating through the polarizer) have more to do with the application time (14 hours) in Chad's case, and also general application. He stated that he used "way too much" and it was "running over the edge"... he also stated that he used masking tape, but it wasn't clear if he left it on, or removed it right away to remove unwanted excess stripper. Chad, perhaps you could clarify, and also, do we think that stipper entering the edge could have caused this failure ?? To me, it seems at least "plausible".

I agree that it appears the CMV panels are not as easy removing the a/g as other panels using stripper, I think it's wrong to simply say "don't use stripper on a CMV panel"... there appears to be more to it than that.... I really wish I could go back and try the water method again... just for comparison... it may well be that it is a preferred method over paint stripper... there certainly has to be an easier way of removing the a/g of CMV's as there has been reported for others... hummmm......

hmmm... by a quick look over the last few days it looks like if you have a samsung panel(2 H2O successes) or a cmv panel(one H2O succes, 2 stripper failures) the water method is your first choice.... it might be really helpful if people post the actual panel manufacturer so we can start to gather some stats, especially as LCDs can be the same model number but contain different panels inside depending on when they were manufactured ..
I have a gateway FPD1530 coming in (along with new light meter;-) this week and will probably follow marks recommendation .... water first and if that don't fly, then move to stripper....

hey, maybe you can start adding numbers to the first post in that thread... like "strips:
Samsung: 2 H2O success
CMV: 1 H2O success,2 stripper failure
"
or something like that...though I suppose then someone will not read the actual posts and do it differently than the successful ones did....

When duece985 did his CMV 520D, he left the stripper on for 15 hours, and damage was done to the polarizer (bubbles under it).

My first attempt with stripper was with a medium strength Klean Strip. It didn't work removing antiglare, but it did cause damage to the polarizer (again, bubbles) after being left on for 14 hours.
I only had success removing the antiglare with the potent Jasco stripper. The damage had already been done by the Klean Strip.....the Jasco just made it worse.

And yes, the masking tape was on everytime I applied stripper. Also, the bubbles formed around the center portion of the panel - not the edges.

It appears "Jasco Premium Paint & Epoxy Remover" (or something just as potent) is the only stuff that will attack the CMV 520D antiglare. Remember, 85% of the AG came off when I first used the Jasco after 2 hours. Maybe Jasco stripper would be safe for maybe 3 or 4 hours on these CMVs. It will take another person brave enough to risk their CMV 520D to know for sure.

I would have loved to put it in my projector except that I do not have a projector built yet. I figured I am going for maximum quality on my first build so I jumped head into the AG removal. Then I will build my box. I am going to model one in cardboard first to figure out optimum spacing and lense placement with the whatever sled design I build. Then build the final box around that. I do want to make and leave room for a wuxga screen so that will need to be accounted for as well.

Back to the topic at hand. The panel stripped beautifully and the AG removal was easy as pie.

mikyd: Good idea, but I originally started that thread to post successful removals or actual polishing (non so far except for SonicWonder's test) and to show any ill effects after long term usage. I believe Sonic has started another thread allowing others to post failures and model of panels that were attempted. This may be good to seperate the two so to make easier for others when they research for themselves. What I may do, at your suggestion, is post and reedit successes based on methods and brands at the beginning to make it easier for others to take quick note of. Thanks again.
sim

Nice.

Did you try the sticky tape idea to pull the anti-glare off? After you remove the wet towel, the idea is to stick a piece of sticky tape to the anti-glare and peel it up taking the anti-glare with it. It would only work if the tape did not give first, but I think you would agree that is at least possible.

The other idea is to prevent edge tearing with the tape. The idea is to run a perimeter of tape around the anti-glare (obviously only on the surface) to reinforce the edges.

You say that it required a fair bit of force. I'm pretty sure you could have soaked longer, it should be quite easy and there should be no cleanup. The thought right now is that there is no glue there to clean up. Anything that you see or feel will just dry up within a few seconds to a shiny smooth finish (we think).

Nice work. I love how you did this even before building the projector. It's got to be done, so just get it out of the way . That is exposed PVA polarizing magic action™. Be careful not to scratch it .

Mark.

Great work. FWIW There should not have been any cleanup. I found that if I just peeled the anti-glare off that there was a pristine surface underneath. That surface dried in a few seconds, maintaining the finish.

Honestly though, if there were blemishes in the surface immediately after peel up, I think I would have wiped them up too. Those probably would not have gone away, and would have dried up just like that. Could be very hard to clean up after drying.

Mark.

Sonic has figured out what may have happened with Oztang's results. Oztang found that with complete emersion in water his anti-glare would peel off, but if left for too long the PVA completely dissolved.

This worried us because we could not reproduce total dissolution using ragging or water droplets on the surface. We knew that dunking is a completely different game but it just didn't seem likely that if Sonic took a section and dunked it, that the same thing would happen (It would put a lot of faith in theory). His results could have meant one of 2 things:

1. He has a grade of PVA that is even more water soluble than Sonic's (The one we were worried about). We have therefore been crash testing with a panel that does not well represent the worst case scenario so far.

2. Total dunking will result in dissolution, while ragging will not.

So Sonic cut out a 2cm triangle and left it in water for 5 days. At the end of the first 24 hours, the PVA was as good as expected.

He went out of town (Los Angeles ), and when he got back the PVA had completely dissolved.

.

I'm smiling because this is actually a good thing. Now bear in mind over a similar time period, ragging did nothing. This proves at least somewhat that we have been performing our experiments on a very water sensitive panel (scenario #2). We also don't know at what point he had complete dissolution. He was not home when it happened .

Mark.

Chad,
can you post the active ingredents in the Klean-Stip product that you used ? ... and also, there appears to be two different kinds of Klean-strip stripper, the KS-3 and the Strip-X, which one were you using ?

I did notice that in both yours and duece's case you left stripper on for an extended period of time (10+ hours)... in my opinion, this is the cause of failure. Although PVA has a resistance to methelyn chloride, there is permeability to worry about as well... for if this stripper permeates the PVA layer of the polarbear, then it attacks the underside TAC layer, giving the "bubbles" that you witnessed. I do realize that tests were done with small samples of stripper left on for extremely long periods of time, with no side effects to PVA, but sometimes results vary.

Sonic/Mark, where all your test samples with long term exposure of stripper and water, done on polarbear that was still mounted to the LCD ? (just asking as I don't remember all of them were, but I know some of them were)

My point is this... I don't think making a general statement like, "don't use stripper on CMV panels" is quite correct as the application may have a lot to do with the failures that occured. I think the ideal application of stripper to a panel should be about 1 hour... if an application of stripper is not doing anything by that point, then it's probably not a very good stripper for this application. I think frequent, short term (45-60min) applications are the best bet for using stripper to remove a/g. Long term exposure (3,4,5,6+.. hours) should not be necessary for a/g removal, and can lead to the types of failures that we've seen thus far.

I'm not really trying to be an advocate of using stripper, but I firmly believe there are many ways to skin this "cat" (polarbear), but success and failure is sometimes in the small details... So far I see only 3 methods...

1) full polarbear peel removal
2) water rag soak, peel
3) paint stripper, scrape

we still (to my knowledge) haven't tried benezene, which was discussed as being one of the best solvents for removing a/g ?

Basically what he is saying Wait while we figure out what happened here. There seems to be a missing variable. We need to track it down.

The thing is, the active ingredients of stripper are not only supposed to be non-reactive with PVA, but also non-permeable. What we have seen here is permeation. That is what signaled the blanket statement. It is just a blunt warning to give us time to work out what happened.4) PEEK (not yelling, that's how they write it ).Application. We still don't know how to apply benzene. It's a work in progress. My concern is that there may be no glue here. That is what my tests indicate. If that is the case, then Benzene would therefore do nothing. We need a chemical that either breaks down (Stripper) or re-plasticizes the TAC, or breaks down or re-plasticizes (Water) a thin top layer of PVA.

I did a test to see if I could stick a piece of just removed TAC to a sheet of plastic. No go. There was no detectable adhesive, or PVA on the TAC surface. Seems at least some would have wound up there if re-plasticization was not the case.

Mark.

With the Klean stripper I looked for an active ingredient on the can and couldn't find one. However, it say in the warning one of the ingredients is Methylene Chloride. Klean doesn't give too much info on their cans. However, it was the Strip-X kind (it was the only Klean stripper Lowes had). I now know Klean KS-3 is the more potent stuff.

With the Jasco it would take at least 3 hours to eat the antiglare on a CMV 520D. Two hours just didn't cut it.

I think I may have over-reacted when saying "don't use stripper on CMV panels"; I just didn't want to be responsible for ruining anyone's CMV since my posts have contributed to Chad's failure. I feel that some of this may have had to do with Chad's initial use of Kleen Strip because he states that the bubbles were induced by that stripper. Not knowing what ingredients are in the Klean Strip, I am not in a position to make an informed comment at this time. I will edit the comment I made above accordingly.

Gadget: yes my tests were done in situ (on the panel) save for the immersion test I did on an individual piece of polarizer. If anyone else would like to persue the stripper method with a CMV, they are more than welcome, but I think to do so on a live projection panel would be akin to Russian Roulette. We know that the "TAC " layer is water permeable in this panel, and that is the better option at this point IMHO.

I'm sure the key to figuring out what happened with Chad is in his removed polarizer. Mark may be able to devise some experiments (there I go VOLUNTEERING his services again! ) to help us along in this effort. My brain has been somewhat muddled with personal matters as of late, so hopefully I will be able to join in in productive discussion soon.

PS: The immersion test I did with water indicates to me that ragging is a lot less agressive than dunking in water. We had hypothesized this theretically, now we have experimental proof. This is a BIG up for the rag method. If your "TAC layer" is h20-permeable, I believe this is the easiest, safest, and most effective way to go at the current time. Part of the problem with stripper is that there are so many formulations out there; one may be effective, while another will toast your panel. If ragging fails however, it is your only option right now (other than tearing the polarizer off althogether).

Ah, that makes sense. I agree, some other variable.


I didn't realize that PVA was impermeable to methylene chloride, only that the permeation rate was very low. In the charts that Sonic had posted is seems to indicate that the permeation rate was rated "E", which means 0-1/2 drop permeation per hour... and breakthrough time was >360min (6 hours).... but at 14 hours exposure, permeation may well be a problem.


Should have clarified as I was refering to only a/g removal Polishing and encapsulation still remain additional alternatives for "defeating" the a/g.

edit: changed some wording so as not to come across as an a$$...., sorry Sonic...
edit: also changed '<' to '>' ... fat fingers.

I just wanted to say that (like Chad) my a/g didn't even BEGIN to weaken for a very long time. I believe mine was even more resistant than Chad's because I had previously polished with Mother's, which of course decreases the surface area (what was I thinking??? that's the OPPOSITE of sanding!! ARGH!! :angry: ).

My theory about the lines in our panels is this (tell me what you guys think!). I'm guessing that CMV cuts very thin lines through the TAC and PVA to allow a the glue to dry more quickly, either that or the way CMV applies their polarizers to the glass substrate severly stresses the polarizers (but why would they do that? Although it doesn't seem to be a problem normally.) If the stripper had began to penetrate the TAC/PVA on it's own, there's no way we would see such regularity (IMHO).

I don't have a decent camera, just a camera phone but if anyone wants pics, I can give it a shot (they won't be pretty, though!).

Ouch. Is that my tushy smarting from being slapped!?

Did you read the post above yours or did we cross-post?

tell me you like it. j/k

yea, just cross-post; sorry, didn't mean to come across that way... my wife always says I have a way with words...

no hard feelings ?

Slap! .0-1/2. I believe it is closer to zero based on what the chemist said to Sonic.It's >360min. For now () I am assuming that this means that they gave it six hours and then gave up.I figured if you put polarizer removal on there, it was fair game .

edit I am not disagreeing . Obviously the stuff did permeate. It doesn't get any simpler than that.

Mark.

This reminds me, both of your panels had polishing/sanding done to them prior to application of the stripper. If the a/g layer is as thin as we are seeing, couldn't some damage have been done to the PVA layer of the polarizer allowing this type of permeation ?

I've posted in the "Trading Post" section looking for dead CMV panels... there are things I just need to try now !! ... if only time and money were so abundent...

There was a post that was moved from the procedure thread. Someone posting that they had a CMV-520D that was broken. I think the post has been completely deleted now.

I should have posted something. I thought it was a very useful post, he just put it in the wrong place.

Mark.

None whatsoever. Absolutely limp - hehe


Regarding the permeation rate of Methylene Chloride in PVA, in addition to the chart, we have the experimental observation of leaving the stripper on bare PVA for over 50 hours with no degredation to the rear TAC (Jasco Brand only). Granted there may be different grades of PVA, so the actual permeation time on any given panel may be somewhat up in the air. I can say that my PVA is quite "weak" as they go, I was able to totally dissolve it in 1/2 cup of distilled water .

Also, the area where I ran each of my panel tests was virgin, no other treatment had been applied to it.

Well i striped the anti glair and also the polarizer off The Image is so transparent you can not see it with the naked eye, I will attempt to place this polarizer behind the projection lens to see if it will correct it and also provide a super bright image.

http://cgi.ebay.com/82mm-PL-Linear-Polariz...1QQcmdZViewItem

Joe

Joe, all my testing so far has proven that, photographic 'polar bears'

wont fully polarize.. all thus far extinct to a purple level..

It would be interesting to have a side by side test of snipet pieces of polar with TAC and PVA exposed and completely submerge in both water and stripper and see which dissolves PVA quicker.
sim

My bet's on water. When it comes to dissolving PVA or mixing Cool-Aid: I always turn to water.

The stripper piece would be cool. No tack on either side. I imagine the PVA would bubble up and shred, but I don't think it would dissolve.

Better yet, I'd like to see the stripper snippet submerged in the raw liquid ingredients of stripper minus the thickeners. And the water snippet minus it's thickeners (rag + TAC). It could be the perfect example of why it seems the physics of application is what really matters.

Mark.

Mark: do you think it is possible that the CMV polarizers are layed down in tightly butted strips (perhaps to make the maximum use of materials)? If there were a physical seam in the PVA, that would explain the attack of the rear TAC layer.

What is really odd is that these failure bubbles in the TAC seem to be occurring in parallel strips the same way grain does. I am sure that the orientation of these failures is a clue as to their origin. I don't think it is a simple matter of Methylene Chloride permeating the PVA, because if that were the case, one would expect to see a random orientation of bubbles?? The other possibility is that the Methylene chloride is permeating fastest along grain lines, thus causing this failure pattern. But again, the polarizer has never been stressed, so where the heck did the grain come from in the first place?

Sorry, I'm justing thinking out loud in hopes that someone else can help fill the gaps. We really need to test a piece of this polarizer to find out what is going on.

Hi all. I've read the most recent 20 pages or so (backwards like Memento), and would like to try this on my BENQ FP557s. It looks like sanding then rag soaking with distilled water is a good way to start, right? I haven't stripped the monitor yet - would it be easier to contain the water if I left it unstripped until the AG was off? Thanks.

Hi, and welcome to the longest conversation ever . Don't sand if you are going for the rag technique. I posted a whole photo series on how this is done. What you see in the photos is all I did. Instead of using a blade to flick the corner up, try sticky tape and let us know how it works.You need the front bezel off to get at the edges of the polarizer. Hold on while I gather the instructions on how to properly rag. I will post them into this thread:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=97225

Please bear in mind that this is all experimental. Things have and could go wrong.I like the idea. But it is my feeling that this would exceedingly hard to do. To do this without any overlap, or gaps (especially over time) would be just ridiculous.It's that last possibility that I would say is most likely.Application. Even so much as having the stuff on a roll (that is how it is shipped) could stress it enough. If it were from the end of a roll it could have been stressed a great deal.

I think people will find that water does the trick just fine. The reason I say this is because water does have the advantage of constant volume separation via the TAC. And it is possible to have the entire PVA surface exposed for very little time in the first place. Stripper has it's thickeners, but I don't think they compare. Just my hunch. It would be really nice to see if the permeation can be avoided with water, or how acceptable the damage would be. I look forward to someone actually ragging a CMV-520D. We've already proven the TAC is water permeable.

Mark.

In terms of the CMV, I think you are quite correct. In fact, I have not personally heard of anyone having a polycarbonate "TAC Layer", but I guess it is possible. The overwhelming majority of the panels out there have TAC (according to my web searchings...). This should make them emminently compatable with h20 ragging.

Still, there have been horror stories and successes with both techniques. As a ragging horror story, Mikau's panel jumps to mind; but some of that may have been due to user error (no offense Mik ). Not to be pessimistic, but I think our worst case scenario is playing out here - there may be no "magic bullet" that will work on all panels. This may very well turn out to be a panel-dependent procedure.

Like Mark says, no sanding necessary. This will be a VERY important panel to add to our list, because so many members have a benq in their pj's (myself included - hehe). Although this might be classified as heresy on this thread, I recommend you NOT strip the a/g right away. Live with the panel and pj for a while - learn its limitations. Then, when you do strip the a/g, you'll get that wow factor all over again!! Contrary to what this thread might sometimes lead you believe, the standard LL pj works just peachy even without the mod. Check out my PLOG, that pj has no a/g modifications that have been done on it ... as yet ...

Mark and SonicWonder2000 - Thanks.

Sonic - I appreciate what you're saying about waiting, but I already have a "normal" projector (Samsung based... maybe I'll do this LCD after the BENQ), and I know how dim it is. Also, I gather that how reflective the LCD surface is relates to its transmissiveness. The BENQ isn't reflective at all - knowing I could be getting more out of it would drive me crazy if I didn't do anything. Finally, I'm waiting for the Pro Lens so I've got nothing to do for the next month .

Ahhh - then rag away

If you have any questions about the procedure, you can ask here or pm me if you wish. Be sure to use distilled water and apply it sparingly so that it doesn't dribble down the sides of your panel. Amazingly, you don't need a whole lot to get the job done. I find that an eye dropper (or marinade bulb), helps to re-load the rag with water. When I did my tests, I actually used several layers of paper towel (carl's Jr. - hehe), and found I didn't need to reload with water that often; the paper towels saturate with water quite easily.

I would CARFULLY check at 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 hour intervals to see if the a/g lifts from a corner with a razor. It will likely not take the entire 12 hours. Lifting the corner is the most difficult part of the entire procedure. If you see a grayish color to the lifted film, STOP!! It is the polarizer, and not the a/g layer. Reseat the film, re-soak till the next interval and try again (with a different corner if possible). When the a/g comes off, it should give very little resistance. Very much like pulling scotch tape of a roughened surface. It is comparable to a sheet of paper in thickness.

This procedure is unendorsed - it's just what I have learned from experience. However, Mark is the genious brain-child of this method and would be best equipped to handle any technical and procedural questions.

Good luck with it and (of course) let us know the results!