Been reading back at the begining of this thread trying to catch up, but this thread seems to be going faster then I can read.

It looks like the generall concept is, peel off the antiglare, place a new polarizer in front, and thats it. Whats the impediment? Couldn't we just find out if we can place the polarizer in other spots by just physically testing?

I might be willing to volunteer for the experiment, but only if we're confident in this idea.

With a TN TFT LCD (like we use) the panel is white in the off state, however the polarizers are offset 90º. The crystals are twisted to the fully open state when they are off.



From what I have gathered about the manufacturing process of these panels there is no best direction for the light to flow through liquid crystal. The liquid crystal is introduced (sucked) into a panel after it has been assembled. The crystals align by attaching to grooves in a polymide layer. There is a polymide layer on either side of the LC that has been rubbed (grooved), each side with grooves offset 90º from the other. These grooves force the LC into a twist. The LC "finds" its proper orientation but there is nothing to suggest that it has any type of orientation that would make it transmitt better in one direction.

If there are any issues with directional transmittance, the problem would have to be introduced by a film layer.

deathray,, yes I concur,, but logically,, the colour mask is the final level, before it exits the substrate level, for all the voltage twisting,, the mask is the last thing that gives us the display, apart from ext elements of course,, I will still test this, then marco pic it all..

our setup is using the brightness enhancement layer as last layer before, field fresnel,, I am beginning to think this should be on our light source side,,, besides the new principle of removing the antiglare surfaces, and a replacement is better on the exit side for obvious construction reasons.. just need a flipped image..

another test is to occur with this too,,, see if the shiny side will allow better cooling,, in my Haas unit, I have enough temp profiles to see if there is a difference,, my only agravation, is that I will have to bend ffc's other way,, and rejig mount for it,, not hard,, just a pain,, having done this tho will be a one way trip,, i will not revert it,,, I think it will be good, and wether i decide to strip layer or not,, will be easier on field fresnel side,, much easier access..

clive

Thanks jonjandran, hope this works:

Edit: ....guess not, anyways it's the last picture at the bottom that I want shown. Think you can get it in here for us. Would appreciate it! Sorry folks, I'm more of a hardware kinda geek too

Its the box that has this written in it:


What is an LCD?

Among the most common type of flat panel, the TN TFT LCD is an active matrix technology that provides a clear, sharp image. (Illustration courtesy of Samsung.)
In simplest terms, a liquid crystal display, or LCD, is a light valve. Two sheets of polarizing material sandwich a solution of liquid crystal molecules. An electric current passing through the liquid causes the crystals to align so that light cannot pass through. Manipulating the molecules in this way permits or blocks the passage of light.

There are various types of LCD screens. Among the most common and popular are twisted nematic thin-film transistor (TN-TFT), or active-matrix, technology. Three transistors control every pixel to achieve high-resolution RGB color.

Beyond the screen, every display includes backlighting and a controller. Controller circuit boards convert analog signals from a PLC or PC to a digital signal that the LCD can understand. Backlighting brings the image to the screen surface and may be done in any of a number of ways, among them electroluminescence (EL), molded light pipes, fiber optics, and cold cathode fluorescent tubes (CCFT). Backlighting must be intensely bright, as only a small amount of light—in some cases as little as 6%—finds its way through the panel to the display screen surface. Transmissivity in a typical flat panel is 4% to 8%.

dang Elken, I was joking about 'dragging it around the city'....

All good points... I would suspect that the color mask on the wrong side might defocus the image a little bit.

Your point about the brightness enhancement layer (or birefringment film or compensation film or wave plate or whatever it is) conscerns me. It may be a case of two steps foreward and one step back. We gain transmittance by removing the antiglare layer but lose some light gathering ability and viewing angle with out the compensation film.

It will be interesting to see your results.

As to cooling... I would think that the thick plastic antiglare layer added some heat insulation on the panel. However once the panel is warm, I would think that heat will be more easily scavenged away from the panel without this layer.

[edit] Holy crap what happened to the plane? I hope that wasn't due to the merlot that you were into last night. What's the saying? 24 hours, bottle to throttle?

[edit#2] Oh... I didn't notice the bird at first... wow!!! I guess the bird didn't wait 24 hours.

Hello?

Mikau,,, I would suggest waiting till all votes are in before, taking that step,, unless of course you willing to irreversably damaging your LCD,,, especially after you stated it took you long time to save up for LL gear..

I suggest you find all Marks posts, and read them carefully..

BBLater,, gotta go deliver system for cust,, been configuring all morning.. now time dollar earning..

Mikau, I suggest you wait for Elken's final report on this, but if you prefer to take on a similar experiment on your own then that is your decision. Save the effort and panel and when Elken delivers the good's then proceed all that you want to on your pj. I'm just as eager as you and I would guess the rest of us. Once you are working in duplicating what Elkin's doing...well,...we may be already finishing up our projection.

SIMUL8R; here's your pic. Let's see if it will attach as a gif.

[edit] Yep, cool I thought only jpeg's would attach.

SWEEEET! Thanks DRay: So, what do you all think? See any weeee wittle hinges and springs?

. Butting heads?

I just want to be sure we test everything.

Elken: doesn't polarization.com deliver to Australia?

I would doubt that what you are seeing on that old panel is a brightness enhancement layer. It is probably just a well polished polarizer. I'm sorry if that image I posted has confused things, but now that I think about it the company that I swiped it from may have been applicators of brightness enhancement layers. It's not at all standard equipment, so far as I know.

To be clear, there are only two possible specific brightness enhancement layers as far as I know:

Prismatic Filters.
Reflective Polarizers.

Or both combined.

3M is just breaking ground with these 2 products, and as far as I know they are not available for bulk order. So the odds of a major panel manufacturer integrating these things into mass products, especially into a fairly old laptop like that is slim.

A prismatic filter is not going to aid in gain in our collimated setup, unless your light engine is not a point source.

A reflective polarizer is not going to help either, unless a light recycler is integrated (a diffusing reflector).

Mikau: A quick summary. We are trying to test the prediction that the removal of all the layers in an LCD that are not specifically needed, or that have no effect in our application will increase the brightness/image quality of these projectors. These layers are (and followed by the physics):

1. The anti-glare. By removing the anti glare surface treatment, you are removing light diffraction as the collimated light transfers from one medium to another (having a different refractive index) at an angle. You are also removing the effect of the materials transmissivity and reflectivity.

2. The compensation film. By removing the compensation film you are eliminating a layer that is designed to correct for birefringence at an angle. Our light is collimated. It has been said that brightness and contrast are compromised with the addition of these films. Not every panel will have compensation film. Elken feels his did (claims a gelatin like substance). You are also removing the effect of the materials transmissivity and reflectivity.

3. Prismatic filters (not likely to exist in a stock panel, and not likely to be glued in the first place). Simply do nothing with collimated light. Their material, design, and reflectivity will decrease transmissivity.

4. The glue that holds them together. Material transmissivity/reflectivity.

The taping/glycerin/spray ideas that are being presented are a simple simulation of removing the anti-glare. The results have been promising. If full removal shows little improvement, then these are the methods we will be focusing in on. It does not completely simulate a removal of the anti-glare, or any of the other layers.

side project # 1: At the end of all this, I hope to see about designing a light recycler, combined with a reflective polarizer as a replacement for the current absorption polarizer. Other than the fact that having the polarizer removed will accommodate this change, this is a completely unrelated idea.

EDIT: side project # 2: Attempt to establish if the reversal of the LCD effects image quality. Attempt to understand why . Removing the anti-glare increases pixel definition on the front side. This will allow for a roughly equal comparison of both sides. Other than that, the project is unrelated as well.

Side effect: A neat side effect of having un-bonded layers, is the opportunity to place them away from the panel, such that the panel will not absorb their heat, and the panel can be cooled directly.

Mark.

Things to consider in establishing wether direction through the panel matters:

1. The transistors and capacitors are reflective.

2. The electronic components (the transistors and capacitors) in an LCD are mounted to one side of the panel.

3. The masks (black matrix) are on the opposite (front) side and are designed to mask out glare off these components.

4. The RGB filters are on the front side. The crystals would therefore need to transmit the color perfectly.

My deduction of all of this is that it is pretty likely that the direction does matter to some degree.

If the components are exposed to direct light, they will reflect that light into neighboring sub-pixels. Whereas if light came the other direction, only reflected light will reflect off the electronic components.

And then the issue of color accuracy after passing though the crystals. I would suspect that the color frequency would be preserved, but if it isn't then sending white light through the crystal, then filtering would be much better. This is because you would have shifted the whole spectrum, from which the specific R, G, or B value could still be precisely extracted. As opposed to shifting one of R, G or B to a different frequency (not good).

Further, the filter edge is what defines the perfect square of the sub-pixel. If that imaged edge is made to pass through a liquid one would think it will get blurred somewhat.

Just my deductions,
Mark.

Mark: I hope we do proceed with removing all material off the test panel. It would be a great experiment to try and see what materials we could add or combine in order to get optimal results. I am not familiar with a 'light recycler', I may have to look that up.

ps....I don't suppose you work for 3m, do you...just kidding

As described earlier, a reflective polarizer reflects back light energy that cannot be polarized. A light recycler would be anything that could take that reflected light, diffuse its polarization, and return it to the polarizer for a second try. Implementing something like this could give somewhere around a theoretical 48% increase in brightness (By my rough figuring).

Mark.

extremley well put there Mark,,,, you are right on the button,,, thats what I was eluding to before,,,

I have two PJ's here,, grrrr, and extra optics,,,, time time time,,, the tick is clocking,,,,, Iwant lumens now,,,,, ok I feel better now......

ummmm,, thru this weekend I will be putting very serious effort into these tests,,

if anyone gets the time,,, unless i do it first,,, scouring the BENQ site for info on their particular panel structure would very helpful,,,,

maybe Mikau,, this is something you could do,, would also help your knowledge reservior too..

deathray,,, excellent diagram of LCD,,, I know the distances between are very small,, but the more i think on it, (drawn from telescope making days) the more I am convinced, reversal of our panels gives if but a small edge,, it would be worth it.. my yet to done Macro shots will show this....

Yummy,,,, food

sorry forgot description

some info from microscope technology, re bifringement techniques

the rest on LCD is BENQ's layering by their polarization company, which they own

Looking forward to the results.

Well, since my LCD has suffered greatly at the paws of my cat, I'd be willing to ship the panel to someone, if they want a test panel to try with.

The glass is cracked along one corner, I haven't tested to see if it'll still make any kind of image, but if so, then this may be a good panel for experimentation.

When I don't have is access to alternate polarising material. So if anyone who DOES have access to that material is interested in testing with this panel, then it may be just the thing.

I haven't built my projector yet (It just seems funny). I couldn't make the proper conclusions without one.

SupraGuy,Elken: What about polarization.com?

I'm thinking the ultimate would be a reflective polarizer from 3M, and an absorption analyzer from polarization.com. But enough stuff from polarization.com to do both sides just in case.

Mark.

yes I looked at site,, at least there are some specs,, also they state they can be used for lacd panels where people have damged panels,,, but is this stuff really good enough, this is the real question..

Mark::: did you read some that extracted material on birefringement,

I forgot about when I was working in science software and hardware sales about Birfringement,, and how it used to look at microscope samples

without any item on stage, the polarizers block all light,, but as soon as you place a sample between,, you get birfringement, ergo light is twisted, ergo,,, you then get light out to objective and lens,,, ergo,, a good image thru microscope, like a slice efffect depending on sample posistion and rotatation,,

IE,,, good contrast whilst looking at sample,,, without light flooding which would hide subtle details...

the normal method is high illumination,,, but in microscopes this has undesired effects

I know this seems a bit off the subject,,, but not really,, adds to understanding of what we are really dealing with..

Clive

As mentioned earlier, I have read a number of sites that recommend them for LCD polarizer replacement (For smaller LCD's). Their specs are the best I have found. They are pretty spectacular, in fact (if they can be trusted). The price is great too. Keep in mind they are 90 degree polarized.Yep.

A similar effect can be seen with just one polarizer and a backlit second polarizer. If you cross them such that no light passes, and place an opaque object with a diffused surfaced between, the object will appear to be backlit while the backlight source is not visible. This is because the reflections diffuse off the object around the edges. They will therefore have a diffused axis of vibration (polarization), and thus some light will be properly aligned for the second polarizer. Really interesting effect, and very easy to see why it would be useful in sensitive microscope work.

Unfortunately the article still doesn't confirm the need for compensation films with inline samples and collimated light, so it doesn't put us much further ahead. I think the reason why that question is so difficult to answer is that this is highly commercialized stuff. Marketing really buggers up the science. They leave us no choice but to reverse engineer the stupid things :angry:.

Mark.

Hey Mark out of curiousity,, what is your background??


correct me if I am wrong ,, but is not the lcd, like the microscope sample in effect,, but driven but voltage which replaces the diffraction effect of a sample, as per before,,,

the glass sandwich is the birefringement itself,,,

from the tests I have done so far,, I saw no ill effects of result, and this was using just a straight polarizer,, in fact I swear the sharpness and purity increased, without the glue and antiglare layers,, and that was with non collimated light behind panel too,, which is extreme test,, and with our collimated light,, this is even better senario,,

well this weekend shall gives us thru PJ results,,, getting impatient here heheheh

please tell me we're getting somewhere.

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

Found your brightness enhancement film, interesting. Can't seem to get this picture in here, but it's very interesting. Help anyone, anyways check the site.

Based on your findings Elken, do you think we should not worry about over transmittance. I know, I know...weird question but our LCD's only put out 350 to 500:1 contrast ratio. Would our current lamps (400 watts) over saturate the crystals. dang....being to sound like Mark here.. ...well, maybe. As I see it, the commercials have contrast levels exceeding 1000:1 but I would guess they have done their numbers to come up with an equalibrium of lumens to contrast in order to project an appropriate image for each model.

....I think I answered my question, guess testing the amount of appropriate ansi light relative to the amount of contrast ratio of our LCD's....wait,....stupid, stupid....we discussed this earlier about dimming with respect to our ballast's............damit, gettin another beer.

Oh well. Nevermind, I powered up the LCD, and it does not produce a discernable image.

If the brightness increases the ratio between the brightness of your whites and the brightness of your blacks remains the same. I see what you are saying about the possibility that the blacks will appear too bright. Your eye should pretty well adjust to the new white level, and thus for the new black level, I would think.

FWIW: don't forget, it is one of the deductions that contrast ratio will increase with these removals as well.You know, I had this crazy post (DELETED) that attempted to explain where I'm at in terms of how exactly the crystal helix guides the polarization through the twist. But it was a real wild-card. I need to research and think about it some more. It's not exceptionally important to our cause here anyway. The only conflicting theory I could put together (the one I removed) would behave exactly the same when tinkering with the polarizers anyway.Software . And I'm pretty young so not really that much background on anything per say . However, you may have noticed I obsess myself with why things work, and the process of finding out how. I'm known for it.

Mark.

ok,,,, I have now watched two dvd's with partial tape over antiglare

now this covers a lot of miles as far as different scenes, different contrasts, different brightness's,, different types of textures,, etc etc etc etc etc etc etc..

I am now absolutely and totally convinced that

1/ contrast increases
2/ colour vibrance is increased
3/ detail,, hmmmm sharpness is substansially increased

justification of this point,,, sean penn is wearing a corduroy jacket

the detail of the cord lines was sharp and highly visible,,, this alone was a fantastic visble point of reference,, as lines horz or vert are the most difficult to resolve...
even in motion too

4/ the panel runs at a lower temperature,, even tho it has another layer,, i believe that the reflectivity of the tape was doing just that,,, whilst the light had a clearer path thru the panel

however i reckon that full removal will be even better,, i wont even try to put a %age on this, as the gain is highly visble,, so it does not matter what it is,,, it is just a pure gain,, better than all of the playeing with reflectors has acheived so far

mind you I advocate all of these, things still..
geez with the reflector expirements, the screen expirenments etc,, and even the what I now call the """""head butting thread""""

oops Eballast combined thread :angry:
a bit like trying to make a round wheel square whilst still getting a smooth ride,,,,

hehehhe sorry all those concerned,, but you need to step outside the square,, oops circle,, and take a good look

scuba steve, took a wise step,,, cone of silence,, or as we say in this thread ::the non cone of light""""

oh hehheh sorry had a few ports,, here so apologies to no one concerned,,,

never mind me getting off high,,, I darn well fell off ouchhhhh

It was Dazzzzzla's fault he threw another prawn at me,,,,,,,,

now I really stink !!!!!!!!!

anon....

mikau. relax. have a sandwhich... and a beer (or a prawn and port if you will ). you seem impatient ? things will come to pass in this thread... in the mean time, get your coil core ballast hooked up and see if that helps your brightness. (i'm assuming among other possible things, that this is your main interest in this thread)

cheers,
gs

Gadget,,, I gotta know,, but which beer is your glass,, looks like a
Kill Kenny !! umm sorry ya pint glass!!

Mikau,,,, do a little test for me,,,,

if you can easily stick a piece of packaging tape on your screen ummm lcd that twas

BUT DO it only on the antiglare side,, dont leave it there for too long,,,, I mean days several hours are fine

peels off quite easily,, carefully

and come baclk and tell us what you think,,,

I am being very serious,, but due care please

when you say "packaging tape" do you mean the stuff thats about 2 inches wide?(or 50mm depending on where you're at ;-) ? hmmm.... it comes off decent? I may try that tonight ..... but have no camera so won't be any pictures... gotts email the wife to pick some up on her way to the PO ...

Brain,, I know you have been very tied up with PRO lens,, etc,,,

but would be interesting if you have any input on this subject?

clive..

yep thats it exactly,,,

I really want someone else to try it too,,,

I have done it on two very different PJ's,,, and the nett result is the same,,, gain gain gain,, camera not important,,, just the result from others

Clive

cool, the wife emalied me that we have a whole roll of it(she never even asks why I need stuff anymore, she just shakes her head ;-) will give it a shot tonight, also dug out my old psone lcd, if it still function(colors were all messed up on it last time but for this I don't think it matters) I'll strip it totally of films and mix and match this weekend and see if I can duplicate elkens fine pioneering work ;-) and I think we all owe simul8r mark and elken thanks for all the cool things in this thread... especially elken(clive?) who was skeptical at first having visited this issue before but who in true DIY style tried it anyway..the greatest discoveries(packaging tape??!!) are always serendipitous!

I think this was brought up before but instead of using packing tape which cause bubbles and separation lines(every 2 inches) what about adding sometype of grease or oil? something that doesnt evaporate and can be smeared on in a thin layer. Just hope that the LCD doesnt get to hot and turn your PJ into a fryer.

understood, the tape is to test the pj lcd, stripping will be left to the psone lcd and assorted females... oops .. to the person of your choice to be politically correct...
Smalls: true but I thinkwe'll have to figure out the best way, eventually I think the polarizer will come off totally to be replaced by a non-antiglare one but for those who don't want to take that chance we'll all have to figure out something to put on it..certainly for a greatly enhanced picture we can figure out something...

DON'T FORGET THE PORT AND THE BEER!!

Smalls: you ever seen a window in the winter? if your panel is getting cooling from a slot next to it and with the fan sucking air pass your LCD your gonna see a window in winter....dust collected by the oil or whatever lubricant you use will begin to cake on the minute you turn on your pj. I explained about this earlier in this thread when I tried to 'buff' off the scratch with some oil base. I saw how I was able to see clearly through the panel but I thought it was a bad idea to leave that much oil on it with my Ushio blazing right behind it, so I wiped as much as I could and placed it back in. 3 days later, I opened the box again and found the panel celebrating Christmas without me...if you know what I mean. Mind you, '...there are things in here that do not work to well to burllets..' *Sean Connory - Red October, I do not think the idea of some liquid matter should be any way near an electrical field without expecting personal injury or damage to one's pj. I mean even the idea of heat and oil combine sounds like cooking our LCD's as is.

sim/vic....who the heck is 'clive'

Are you sure it won't leave any sort of gunk on the lcd panel when I take it off?

Hey, its the thought that counts SupraG. I offered a cheap model LCD to Mark in the beginning to do this experiment for us, but he's in Canada and I'm in Washington state (might have still worked out, Mark ) but Elken being the Port drinkin, head buttin, laptop torturin/murderin, goes off in a tangent, foamin at the mouth mad scientist that he is decided to take back his bag of pleasure and do it for us anyways. And he's nothing less what we would expect from a die hard DIY'r

Mikau, know where your coming from my friend. I'm holding back alot cuase I'm also eager to get this done to my panel as well and move on to the screen (seems Elken is already a step ahead on this...ps, he already has an experimental LF/MMudd screen in his shop already)...Elken, I know time is the enemy here but you may have 3000 pair of eyes eagerly and impatiently waiting for your final report on this, but hey, no pressure...hehehe, just remember to spell my name correctly under yours and Marks when you present it

What exactly is the tape doing in theory to produce this superior image? That one is for you mark .

Actually, I'd like to jump in and take that one, Jimmy, if you don't mind....

If i understand correctly, the stickey side of the tape is being applied to the anti glare layer. The anti glare layer is a rough layer (on a very small scale), that diffuses some of the light coming out of the LCD. The sticky part of the tape fills in the unevenness on the anti glare layer, and it has a smooth uniform surface on the other side so now no diffusion occurs, no wasted light being scattered in different directions.

Very well put!

Anybody know where we can find some laminating sheets (the ones that dont need a laminator)? Those will prolly work better than tape.

Addition: What about using a very high grit sandpaper? That could be better than adding an extra layer...

Mikau: I would go with shiny Scotch Magic Tape at first. Packaging tapes come in many different adhesive varieties (hot melt/polymer/silicone/ etc) and thus have many different adhesion properties. Some are very sticky.As before, I attribute it to the fact that light will bend as it exits one medium and enters another having a different refractive index at an angle. Put simply, the plastic of the anti glare has tons of tiny curves, and thus angles for light to impact. Light travels slower through the plastic material than it does through air. There is a moment, if light is entering at an angle, when part of the light wave will be traveling though the plastic, and the other half/quarter/etc will be traveling through the air. With the one side of the wave traveling slowly, and the other side traveling fast, you can see how this would steer/bend the light inward.

So when that light wave exits the panel, it will no longer be collimated, and thus will not be focused to a point by the condenser and will therefore miss the projection lens.

Now, imagine encapsulating these curves in something with a similar refractive index, such that you are effectively extending the shallow spots in the curves. Make the top of that new surface perfectly smooth. No more material transfer at an angle = no more refraction. This is exactly what tape does (Though it's hard to believe it has a similar refractive index but it'll be way closer than air). The gummy side fills in the gaps, and the top is nice and smooth.

Additionally, it is possible that Total Internal Reflection is at play.

Mark.

don't you mean it diffuses the light coming AT the lcd (since the anti glare minimizes the reflections)?

Guess it depends on which way your LCD is facing... I was thinking about mine, which will be using a mirror, so the anti glare side will be facing the projection lens.
If your projector isin't folded, then yes, the light coming into the LCD would be getting diffused by the anti glare.

Again, this might be similar to what Mark is trying to visualize to you all, I wish I could get this image in here but I can't. Check this link: http://cms.3m.com/cms/US/en/2-136/cRrkiFL/view.jhtml
Now its basically a brightness enhancer but imagine if were the anitglare with 'curved' layer turned towards us and will allow you to imagine how the light waves then travel. The adhesive on the tape fill the curves whereby allowing the waves to travel straight and not deflected. Correct me Mark.