How would I remove the TAC?

I have a feeling that samsung only uses uber glue and nothing else. I bet the tac wouldn't come off like the antiglare didn't. But peraps I could try it. I still have my backpolarizer with the antiglare stilll on it. I could test on that if they have the same layers. I've been wanting to see if the 512N antiglare comes off with stripper.

Why do you not reccomend removing the front polarizer? Because the added reflection and light loss? Or because the replaced polarizer will be of lower quality?

Truth be know, I have learned that lesson the hard way . Last time I tried to do something simple late at night (screw down my control boards), I ended up frying the panel in a puff of smoke. It was quite dramatic, actually. There I was, in my whitey tighteys, I plugged the pj in and - BZZZZZ!! - sparks and then a big black puff of smoke... Took me 1-1/2 months to sort it out.

Actually, I'm thankful.

Given that I was in my whitey tighteys, things could've been a LOT worse ...

PS: Thanks for the good thoughts, Sim! I think this is the first BenQ to be put under the knife

Do you go outside in your whitey tighties?

Depends on whose askin'.

(And, of course, how nicely she asks ... )

Yet nobody asks and you display them on the WORLD WIDE WEB for all the world to see. I'd say you never wear pants.

nope first benq was mine

Mikau, if you read about 5 to 6 pages ago you would have found that I removed the TAC, but, if thats to much for you to read then I suggest this: http://www.midwayautosupply.com/detailedpr...ption.asp?12071 This will fix you right up. Oh, and its really practical too.
sim

The first Kogi, KDS and Cornea are mine!!! hehehe But who's counting
sim

I stand corrected! Then let me just say I'll be in honored company

Cheers M8

PS: Sim, I'm gonna go for the Full Monty (front and rear TAC - hehe)

Oh you evil, evil, man ...

Is that what your talking about sim? Actually that was 12 pages back. :angry: lol.

So you basicly just used stripper again?

Foamcows, did you strip your 712 last night?

Crap, you guys are gonna shoot me ...

Well, after having nightmares all last night about the process, I realized something that is going to make stripping the a/g impossible for me just as of yet. I am not really nervous about the methods per se, but I have this phobia I'll do something stupid to the panel like slip and tear the TAB connector (I actually dreamt that last night! ).

This morning, I suddenly realized that I am going to have to place my collimating (rear) fresnel further back in order to prevent "onion-skinning" in the projection. EVERYTHING on my projector is adjustable except, you guessed it, the collimator fresnel/LCD distance. I had heard it doesn't matter that much - and in the standard LL box, it doesn't. Long story short, I'm gonna have to re-design my sled before I can strip this darn a/g. The woodshop is at the folks' place, which is currently being re-modelled :angry: - so it's gonna be a few weeks .

I think I might be able to modify the current sled, but that would require the fresnel to be mounted at spec+3/4" from the LCD (non-adjustable). I fear this might be too far away from the LCD.

For those who have done the procedure: what has your final collimating fresnel-LCD distance has ended up as after a/g strip (split optics)??

ex:
gregeast - spec+1/4"
Gadget - ?
Elken - ?
Sim - ?
etc. - ?

I didnt strip mine yet, I just bought a house, so a few other projects became more important. One being sleep, the other being mini blinds, damn they are expensive.

picking up a new LCD tonight

17" Acer AL1714

50$

seemed hard to pass up

Sonic,
I'm still using mine in the same position before stripping. My sled too would need an overhaul to move the fresnel... I also have a polarizer sheet in the mix, but it doesn't change the distance of the collumator at all. I don't notice the fresnel rings.. perhaps it's the way I have it focused. I do notice the fresnel rings more in the screen pics i've taken... anything away from f/2.8 for pictures makes the rings more apparent.

Uh...what is "onion-skinning"?

Fresnel line pattern showing up in projection

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.............dam, I was looking forward to your strip Sonic, even had the dollar bills in hand ready...hehehe.

I haven't changed my sled at all, yet. The onion skin really doesn't bother me expecially during movie viewings. Guess, because of the remarkable brilliance I'm getting everything seems more lively I don't even see it all. It's only when on desktop or surfing do I notice it. But thats just me.
sim

I think we all need to chip in and buy Sonic some test pattern printed underwear!

Im saving my bills too!

Why would being 3/4 further back make a noticeable difference? the light is collimated at that point so it shouldn't be diverging(much) so an inch or so should be ok I would think... I'm designing my new sled to be about 1-1.25 " away from the LCD ... or am I wrong in my thinking(happens quite often ;-)

edit: I just realized that maybe you couldn't move your bulb further back to compensate for the focal length..?

I had my popcorn made up and everything. I thought I was a perfectionist . But I think I will keep the popcorn around because I want to debate this .I just looked at your sled design again:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=75770

Sounds like you are planning on rigging up a way to press the collimator onto the outside of the frame at the opening. Looks like you could sandwich it there with another cutout, or just clip it on somehow. I see what you are saying in that it looks to be overkill. Is that really a 3/4" increase (1/2" over the new spec)?

Has anyone had problems with placing the collimator further than spec from the panel? I can't see why it would be a huge problem right now. I suppose some of the off normal light that would have been collected and still hit the triplet is now going to hit the frame instead. And the increased reflections could wash the image out. But only a little bit. I say go for it . Honestly.

That combined with the fact that you may not even notice the rings? The feeling I got about those rings is that they aren't really obvious. If they were, I think GregEast would have been pretty unhappy before he figured out exactly how to get rid of them.

Mark.

Yes, that is exactly right. I used 3/4 inch plywood - so it will be spec + 3/4" + 1/8" (tresnel slot width). My concern is that I downsized my lexan window to cut down on stray light hitting the LCD (figured it would help with temps). If I move the collimator fresnel further back, it will catch the "shadow" of the lexan frame. This could cause lighting/FOV problems...

Fresnel rings in the projection would distract me. I am a perfectionist and I would spend hours looking at the rings instead of movies.

The problem is, it sounds like I MAY not get them - seems you have to try it to know. I am erring on the side of caution with the sled redesign. Every time I pull that darn LCD out of the sled my heart sinks till the process is over. The fewer times removed, the better for me.

Has there been anyone who has used a stripped monitor at spec distance without rings?? I know Gadget alluded to it, but he said they show up in photos ... can't figure out if they are there in person or not.

PS: I see a lot of people laying the LCD TAB Connectors flat (at 180 degrees) when stripping a/g. I had always heard that you should never flex the connectors past 90 degrees or so. Has that thinking changed??

Sonic
I took a look at your framework and I was wondering if you might be able to get away with beveling the inside of the frame that hold the lexan. Seems like you are pretty close. I could be way off , though. I can sympathize with you about taking out the sled. That was a long painful recovery...
But we all know you are going to do it...

edit Oh I see what you are saying now.

The Lexan position looks to be adjusteable. Can you move it back?A lack of red, color saturation, resolution, brightness (even if I felt it could not be improved) and clarity would distract me more. Collimator adjustment is step 2. Is there something specific about how your panel is mounted that prevents easy removal?That's no less than 90 degrees acute to the angle they exit the panel (as far as I know). My FFC's come 180 degrees out of my panel and have no factory pressed bends, so the best orientation for them is flat.

AustinT had some problems. Here's something to make the feet a bit colder:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...ndpost&p=100703

AustinT, others here have done well replacing the polarizer.

Mark.

Well, come to think of it I did change my reflector and pulled it back a bit and also switched my collimating fres to be on the side of the lamp then the lexan after. This deminished my rings a tad. Mind you my pj has now become a testing box so everything is still loose in there but still getting nice screenies nonetheless. Also, a day before while switching things around that dam wire that I've been having problems with finally gave and lost the tiny female prong somewhere in my shag rug. So, a trip to Fry's Electronics bought me some IDE plugs and some soldering last night of 20 wires to the panel worked. Just have to encapsulte (theres that word again) the bundle with some sort of glue so not to get loose again. Dam was it pain staking.
sim

Sorry .

edit Your fresnel is taking the full heat/UV of the lamp?

Mark.

So in summary: i should first try the water ragging and if that doesnt work move on to stripper, and if that fails move on to replacement correct?

i just got in the polarization polarizer, this thing is of much higher quality then the surplus shed one. the ironic thing is the surplus shed taped to my fresnell produced a better image then before i tampered with the panel (antiglare sucks that bad).

The beveling idea is a good one. That had occurred to me, but without the use of my dad's toolshed ... it would be a bit difficult. I am tending to want to clip the fresnel to the rear of the sled for a short-term kluge.

Was, now it's back....it's been through alot and I realize it's up for replacement. I'm just trying all sorts of ways just to see the difference. Even tried unsplit but I didn't like how it didn't give me a nice cut frame on projection. As you all may already know I've only paid into LL just about 4 to 5 months ago so basically following the original plans and a shot at Haas's design got me to where I am. But now with this new enhancement is making me want to push my limits and hopefully build another one with possibly the new Pro Lens. Otherwise if I get this figured down to being contented (which is currently looking good) I may just redesign a different enclosure and just buy new freszies....much cheaper.

ps...it is taking alot of my day life and my lady's patience and boy, is she the greatest having to deal with my infactuation with this.
sim

The lexan shield is butted against the back of the lamp rails, as far as it will go, so I can't move it further back.



Granted.



My panel TAB was folded back over the panel, so I cringe to go much past 90 degree. That is a minor problem, I will have to prop it in place while stripping/ragging. Mark, I think you might have joined LL after my ordeal, but my panel was pretty much toast for about 1-1/2 months after I fried the controller boards. I had to repair a cracked controller board I got off ebay to get it working again. I'm using a benq 567v2 panel with a 557v1 controller and power supply. This panel has already taken quite a bit of abuse, and I just want to make sure I don't futz with it too much more. The FFC connectors are only rated for 15-20 cycles before they loose their grip - make 'em count.

Don't get me wrong, I am DEFINATELY doing this mod. I just need to make sure I have all the dominoes lined up before I tip them over ...

Mike, I believe that is the current thinking in terms of precedence. Some people have gone straight for the stripper with good results. I, myself, wouldl rag first.

NAH, BE A MAN AND STRIP FOR US.....hehehe

kidding, I'd have to say the same but honestly I'm afraid of what would have happened to the PVA if some of the water did permeated through the TAC after an attempt with the rag then decided to do the strip. Would the PVA have lost some of it's consistancy and when stripping allowed the chemicals to permeat through it attacking the TAC underneath. This is what I've been assuming but didn't want to say anything unless someone else blurps out with it.
sim

I'll bite - BLURP!

You may be right about that water-weakened PVA would be more susceptable to stripper damage But, that scenario really shouldn't happen if you think about it. If the a/g is water impermeable, ragging doen't work and no h20 gets to the PVA. If water does get through, then it is a moot point because ragging works, no need to use stripper . Both the methods work some of the time, and neither works all of the time. Having tried both, I will say that ragging is a hell of a lot easier if it works for you. You just peel the a/g off like so much dead skin. No need to clean up afterwards, no multiple applications. For some, however, stripping will be the only option at this point.

That said, I still think it would be safest give it some time for any water to evaporate before you go the stripper route after ragging.

I'm not entirely sure what you are saying here. Are you saying that water could permeate the PVA and compromise its structure such that stripper could seep through? It's hard to say. Have all the panels that have bubbled gone through water treatment? If so then this could mean 1 of 2 things:

1. Water is damaging the PVA such that stripper can permeate to the rear TAC.

2. Water has nothing to do with it and stripper is permeating to the rear TAC.

But if a panel is found to bubble even without a previous water treatment then this can only mean:

1. Water has nothing to do with it and stripper is permeating to the rear TAC.

I have been assuming that this is the case, but I see now it is just an assumption. I have also been assuming that when water doesn't work it is because the anti-glare is impermeable to water, so it can not cause any damage at all. But that ignores the possibility that the anti-glare to PVA adhesive is both water permeable, and water insoluble.

No matter what, we can't ignore the fact that there are a growing number of panels that are bubbling up with stripper (or water followed by stripper).Yes!

So your FFC's need to come out of the connectors. That is a good reason to do as much as possible in one shot (Though you may not need a second removal). Is it possible to do the strip with the panel in place. That is, flip the box on it's end and after removing the collimator, or does the edge of the polarizer slip into the groove? Is it possible to take the control board up with the FFC's?I have my BlackBerry tied to this thread. That is why I am always responding seemingly so soon after a post. People probably think that I am on this thread 24/7 . It's pretty funny because it doesn't matter where I am, the thing has gone off for every one of these posts.

The BlackBerry is cool because it doesn't use a pull method for checking for new messages. New messages are pushed so the second anyone posts the thing goes off.That would be my choice for sure.

Mark.

This is of course when the stripper was left on the panel more than reasonable time to attempt removal of the antiglare and TAC. I would then understand the bubbling affect by permeating through the PVA and then attacking the adhesives &/or the TAC. But if used quickly, there would be now harm to the PVA or adhesives and TAC beneath As Sonic as researched with his female chemist from Jasco.

I really want to try one of these panels that have that titanium antiglare. Sounds to me like the Kogi I did which was a little harder removing the antiglare as compared to my Cornea in strip method.
sim

The context of my question was if using water first was actually causing the problem, or if duration does in fact matter with these panels. Something is definitely different with these panels or applications. Sonic did upwards of a 5 day application of stripper with zero damage. These panels are bubbling up in less than a day. The problem is that he couldn't do the job quickly. The stuff wasn't working. Were these people all not using Jasco Premium Stripper?

I suppose we should also do water on a test panel, followed by stripper with a repeat straight stripper and water for a control.

AustinT's scenario also bothers me because he describes a scratch being the point where the bubble started.

edit even if you could do one of these titanium anti-glare's without a hitch, there have been people who couldn't. That is what I am saying we cannot ignore. We cannot just assume it was duration, or technique.

Mark.

OK Sonic, this is what happened to my BenQ fp591 at 5pm today.

Click to view attachment

I saw on Sim's results thread that Stripper was winning 9 to 6, and I've always rooted for the underdog!

(Also, couldn't find any decent stripper or polish )

. That count is not meant to show a competition (I don't think ). And actually there have been probably more like 10 water strips. The count does not include Sonic's test panel, or Elken's polarizers.

I know you've probably seen them, but please follow these instructions exactly. A lot of people have been doing this a bit off (overlapping paper towel freaks me out):

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=99632

It looks like you have some air bubbles. Is the damp paper towel definitely making contact with the anti-galre everywhere? You also don't want any puddles of water underneath. Straight paper only on the entire surface. Too much water has not been tested (I figure it should be okay as long as the anti-glare TAC is there to hold it back).

Mark.

Go Rhino! Go Rhino!

Damn it. You beat me to it :angry:

My bets are on the ragging working like a charm. Go Rhino, go Rhino ... hehe

I overlapped layers on my test panel no problem. Just make sure the towel is making contact with the surface at all points (no air bubbles).

I actually used about 15 layers (!) of paper towel. It was more like a thin sponge. The extra layers will allow for more water to be held; I only had to load up every 24 hours or so. Remarkably, it takes very little water to work.

I mean having the paper towel overlap the edges of the polarizer is not good.

I recommend that the paper be layered. The water will be held back and controlled from pooling on the surface the more layers you have. And I think it helps keep bubbles out as I never had bubbles like that.

Mark.

acer was strip compatable

have the paper towels on it now

just about have my first keg kicked in the kegerator, no idea where im going to fund that replacement

joys, the life of a college engineer

Mark, have no fear, the papertowel is several mm away from the edge of the a/g. I tried to take a picture, but it seems my 5.0mp sony camera is lacking when it comes to macro photography.

Also, that picture was after the first layer of paper towel was applied. I just had to post to beat Sonic to the punch

I actually have 3 layers on, with all large air bubbles removed. At the 1 hour mark, I was able to pull up the corner of the a/g with my fingernail, but could only get a small corner piece off. But considering it was only 1 hour into the soak, I am optimistic that this is going to go very smoothly!

If the antiglare doesn't come off after 6 hours, I am going to change into a pair of tighty-whities, dance around the room and shake it over my head until the a/g slides right off (I have a sneaking suspicion this is what Sonic did!).

Ill check on mine after a study session, should be 2 hours from now.



this is a short video clip demonstrating me(andre brown) verse antiglare(fsu saftey)

http://www.jbalfour.com/videos/Brown-ShortVersion.wmv

That does sound like a smooth one. Just make sure you don't use too much force (wait for it), and that you are in fact pulling up the anti-glare, and not the entire polarizer. I apologize if you are highly educated in the matter, and the simplicity of my suggestions are insulting . Let's face it, the bottom line here is to get that anti-glare off before Sonic's .. That's also how he fixed his controller board if you read his plog.

Mark.

Man - I take a break for a couple of hours and my good name is trashed to oblivion ... okay, maybe not .

sigh...does everyone here have shiny polarizers(as opposed to analyzers) but me? I thought(though I was 99.9% sure I wasn't) that I was just hallucinating when my first panel(may she rest in peace) turned out to have what looked to be anti-glare(or something diffusive) on the rear polarizer...well, long story short, after wrestling with my latest acqusition(fpd 1530, lg phillips lm150x05 .. I think the *08 is in the newer 1530s and possibly the benq531) and finally drilling out a couple of recalcitrant screws, I pull off the backlight ...and yes...another rear polarizer that is not shiny.... well, I guess after I get it installed(assuming it still works after the verbal "ragging" I gave it ;-) and take some light readings(I have a bad case of Roxus Meteritis ;-) (also have parentheses-itis)I'll start with the water ragging.... I actually took my own advice and did the tape test first though and just doing one side was a minimal improvement...tape on both sides and she's as clear as a bell..though it may not improve brightness all that much(just my impression) but definitely clarity...
ps: the first panel was from 2001,the second from 2002 so I wonder if older panels in general might have this issue..
Deathray: I think you said your panel didn't show any(or minimal) improvement with the tape test..is your rear polar shiny/glossy?

O.k., it has been 5 hours, and the FP591 is NAKED!!!!!

I would take a picture, but the lady of the house is watching Gilmour Girls near the naked LCD, and if I started taking pictures, it would force me to answer 'geek' questions which I am not in the mood for.

I have to say though, if anyone is about to rag™ a BenQ, wait more than 5 hours. Although my a/g is off, it did not peel of as smooth as I think in could have if I had waited 3 more hours or so. The water had not permiated the edge of the ag, so I had to use an exacto knife to get the edges up, which I do not recommended. The a/g came off in about 8-10 pieces, but could have come up in a lot less with a longer rag exposure.

Anyways, I am sure if this LCD was left ragging™ for 10+ hours, the a/g would definately slide off like butter.

Sweet . But actually it is not that likely that a longer soak would have helped with the edges. The water moves very slowly across the panel. The only solution I can come up with is to reinforce the edges with tape just before peeling. Did you try that? Did you try using tape to pull the anti-glare up instead of an exacto? Nobody has yet, even though I put it in the instructions . Oh well.He has not stripped his panel from the case yet.

edit as long as the polarizer came off, and didn't put up to much of a forceful fight then 5 hours sounds right.

Mark.