Post:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=93218

Is very important. Don't want anyone getting their hopes to far up.

(It fell off the last page. Doesn't sound like anyone has read it).

Mark.

[Hey, you know...we may also be able to get 3d working on this...what do you think...DAM IF THIS IS NOT GETTING OUT OF HAND!

[/quote]
oddly enough thats what I was thinking ... isn''t one way they do 3d is have the 2 different images polarized in 2 slightly different orientations? so if you had 2 projectors aimed right at you , you replace the rear polarizers with 2 that are oriented differently and then orient each lens of the sunglasses with the respectively oriented opposite polarizer... man, I did get too little slepp ;-)

ok guys brain,, er mine that is has gone into to shutdown mode now

Not sure quite what you meant in that post, Mark. Are you saying the posted results really don't apply?

Laters Elken, great work my friend.

why would the lcds overheat? I think elken said earlier (maybe) that when he put some tape on it ran a bit cooler(the shiny side reflecting some light maybe?) and if you totally remove the polarizers to mount them off-lcd then the lcd panel will only absorb maybe 10% of what it does now..

Uh..it had something to do with taken their knickers off.

I read it I just didn't understand it so I ignored it...hey, its got me thru so far! ;-)

why would the results be different if one total analyzer was used instead of a partial? if that is what you meant....

Mark are referring to the brighter area? And if Elken had used a whole sheet covering the panel thereby doubling the anaylzer? Cause I dont think he did.

Turns out there is still a notable difference.

What you are seeing in those photographs is:

a. The front polarizer removed, and a commercial PJ polarizer on the triplet.
b. The original panel, and a commercial PJ polarizer on the triplet.

Each polarizer has a transmissivity of, at best, 80%. What that means is that only 80% of what is coming off the original panel will be making it through the triplet.

So you are looking at 3 polarizers VS 2.

Fortunately, Elken says the difference is so great, that there is still a huge difference when compared 2 to 2. This doesn't account for varying polarizer transmissivity, though.

Mikau: The proposed setup should result in much cooler panels. The reason is 3 fold:

1. Polarizers will be separate from the panel, so air can be forced straight over the substrate surface (critical area).

1.1. Polarizers will be separate so heat does not need to conduct through the polarizers before it can be removed.

2. Polarizers will be separate so the heat they generate will not contribute to panel heat.

3. Reflective rear polarizers can be implemented, which are around 50% cooler by nature. This implementation alone will result in a near 50% cooler panel having the same brightness.

All of this stuff can be read earlier in the thread.

A 3D system would require a true silver screen as normal screens diffuse the polarization.

Mark.

Great work everyone, very soon the LCD's will be brighter. One thought. The LCD's have diffused light going into them. It would make sense for the manufacturer to make the LCD accept light from many angles. The tape treatment might give an increase in brightness by defeating the rear antiglare or what ever they use. The tape trick would be a good test, but then we would have a shiny surface on the rear of the LCD so all we would need is anti-reflective scotch tape?
My wife sugested using photo album laminating plastic they make several kinds, there is a ton of different laminating plastics for scrapbooking.

Whatever we use it must be able to encapsulate the mottled surface. Does that stuff have an adhesive backing?

Just came up with something:

Avery or Burlington brand printable window decals. They come in 8.5" x 11" sheets at office supply stores. Not quite big enough for everyone, but a good start.

Mark.

OK, I'm a little confused. Now where is the commercial polarizer located specifically. Is it located on the panel in place of the old polarizer. Is it located on the front fresnal. Is it located on the actual triplet lens?

And which post # shows it best.

Is there a difference in transmitivity between the front polarizer on the panel compared to the triplet. Also, when only 2 polarizers are use (instead of 3) do you lose your focus when you put the front polarizer on the triplet?

You know, Mark, it just might be a really good idea for you to put together a test matrix for Elkin. You guys seem to work good together and a test matrix would help him ....consolidate his thought processes throughout this all.

My gosh... It was a cryptic joke, naked lcd's getting hot. FORGET IT!

And my response is a cryptic joke as well. Veeerrryyy cryptic. So cryptic not even a winking smily can tip it off.

Phutton:

He cut just a small square of the original analyzer off the panel. The anti-glare was also removed from that small square, same for the compensation film and glue. It is my understanding that every other area has nothing done to it.

Commercial PJ polarizers are very tiny. Just big enough to cover the incidence on his triplet. That is where the polarizer is. Therefore, 3/4's of the panel is untouched, and thus has 3 polarizers in total, and the test area has just 2 polarizers in total.

Bear in mind, the commercial polarizer is not thought to be of a very high quality.

As mentioned earlier, placing the polarizer on the triplet is not ideal. It needs to be fixed, if your focus rotates, and the stress birefringence of the fresnel is a real issue. Not to mention the inevitable diffusion of some polarization through the fresnel, and the predicted inefficiency of the polarizer at angles.

Both Elken and I have come to the conclusion that you are best to use a large sheet polarizer before the fresnel. I still maintain that not pressed up against the panel is fine, but Elken eluded to some difficulties here before he went to bed. I think we'll be able to straighten them out.

I posted a list of all the possible test combinations earlier. There were quite a few. I see no reason to test polarizers in front of the fresnel anymore. There are just too many issues there. It's just a matter of actual panel layer removals, and their results.

As far as people discussing the "best" polarizers for us to use. It would be the ultimate to use 3M Vikuiti polarizers. They don't publish the crossed specs but the parallel transmission is 83% and the total transmission for a single film is 43%. And it leaves us open to designing a light recycler. Apparently 3M manufactures Vikuiti polarizers in both reflective and absorption linear varieties. The reflection would be used as the polarizer, and the absorption type for the analyzer. It is possible reflective polarizers would be fine on both sides, though.

If 3M doesn't work out: polarization.com seems to be in second place (although there are some descent films from Edmund Optics. I trust their specs more. Just seems funny that polarization.com would have better specs than Edmund ).

Mark.

She just gave me a roll of the stuff, it is self stick but her's is antiglare so no go. The roll is 13.5' x real long it is like the sticky paper that you line shelfs with. in the srapbooking world there is a lot of different kinds of laminating plastic.
Now we can all ask our wives to go through the boxes and boxes and boxes of scrapbooking stuff and finely do something useful with that junk instead of spending endless hours making mats, cutting photos and having scrapbooking parties when we know they should be cooking and cleaning.
Wait she is bringing out a box of lenses and an old Opaque Projector. no way that stuff is really useful honey, really.
This might be a bad time to ask her if its OK to buy that cracked LCD montor on ebay.

Can someone tell me why the lcd won't work without the polarizer and also define the function of a polarizer? (polarizers in general)

Oh no not again !!!

Mark earlier in this thread described the polariser.
Here’s a site that has a good explanation with graphics that might make it a bit easier so get into your mind.
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/polar...arizationI.html


Elken2004: Yes I was happily snoring, only to awake to 4 new pages. Had an all nighter did we?


DJ

Not again, Elken, before I asked what the general idea is. Mark summerized as follows:



Number 2 gives a general description of what the polarizer does, but I'm not sure what "befringment at an angle" means. Does a polarizer just scatter light? Or is it designed to do something more specific?

Btw, don't lcds come with several polarizers between the lcd and the backlight? Do you think one of these could be used? It would certainly be convenient.

OK everyone,,,

please bear in mind that using sticky tape and or any other items,, may work for short period,,

we have to bear in mind U/V I/R effects on such coatings,, most of these coatings will not stand test of time,, we need something that is optically suitable,,

especially the adhesives, on th afore mentioned methods,,, they will not react well beyond a short term usage,,,

SO PLease be CAREFUL


Clive.......

Mikau,, one of my posts,, somewhere back couple pages had a actual documenet,, which was extracted, from Microscope,, technical, operation using Birefringement,, plus other ,, bits,, oh yuk my brain needs more coffee and nicotine,, grrrr...

Dr phibes must have used my lab last night,,, surgical tools everywhere

Your english gets odder as this thread gets longer.

yep it is,, getting older, tired and lazy,, and fingers that dont obey, or cant keep up with da thoughts..

ok,,

New test this day

Addition of sticky tape below cut section, across width of laptop display to compare removed with (commercial PJ polarizer) etc,,,, geez I read my own text ,, no sense, anyways,, i think someone will undersatnd even if I dont.

another test,, I have another dead panel,, I am gonna see if I can remove shiny only polarizer, intact and clean it up,,, that will be fun..

if that works i will remove all but one quarter, of lappy antiglare to see larger area and also I have gotta do something about the blinding balance of light spilling past the smaller panel,,, ahhh make quick mask,,,

last night was spur moment start,, so my preps werent perfect...

but glad I did it,,

i was kinda worried a moire pattern might result of pushing optics to limits,, but thus far, none seen,,

Dazzzla: Thanks for providing that link, as simple as it was it cleared a great deal of things I wasn't aware of.
sim

I think we may be beyond tape test level at this point but for what its worth. I finally got my hands on a role of tape and stuck a piece to my 512N. Noticed some improvement but it was difficult to tell because there was an awful lot of air bubbles so it was kind of hard to see. I'm going to try to reapply the tape and try to be carefull not to let in air bubbles, I'm practicing on a mirror. I attach a bit to the surface and hold the tape stretched with one hand, I then slowly press the tape on by sliding my finger from left to right and moving forward, it seemed to work pretty well. Also I think it may be a good idea to attach a small piece of paper to the underside of the edge of the tape, so you can peel it off easy.

I'm thinking about grabbing some of that crap out of an old scrapbook and seeing how it looks. That stuff isn't too sticky but may surve as a temporary alternative untill we can figure things out.

I stopped into Michael's Crafts to find this scrap-booking stuff. Yep, it's:

Made by Magic Cover.
Called "Self Adhesive Covering".
Comes in 9 foot by 18 inch rolls.
$4.99 CAD.

The surface seemed to be smooth, but I didn't get a good look at it because you had to take it out of the packaging and peel back a protective coating from either side. For some reason I wasn't too concerned with the surface, either. It says it's reposition-able. There was also a 5' x 13.5" roll for $2.49 CAD . Pretty steep stuff. I went to staples, and they don't stock the Avery window stickers.Number 2 gives a general description of what the compensation film layers may do to the image quality of our projectors. I didn't discuss the polarizers in that post because polarizers are not something we would be removing. The plan is to replace the polarizers with better quality/enhanced features. The post that DAZZLA is referring to is here:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=91293

Hope that helps.

DAZZZLA: that link was neat. Somebody is very good with Applet programming there. Sure doesn't need many words with visuals like that. Even the more complex stuff was never mentioned in writing, but was hinted at with the graphics.I'd hoped you would give that a go. Hopefully it has the same 45 degree polarizer orientation. Then we will get some solid comparisons. Do you think it would be possible to have:

a. no compensation film, but everything else (including the anti-glare).
b. just the anti-glare removed.

And I am going to keep campaigning for a section having everything gone but two separated polarizers.

Mark.

Mark, why with antiglare? If for comparison then a portion of the original panel will show this. If anything I thought anitglare is a culprit that we will rid regardless.

ok for less complication.. i am putting my results in LCD enhancements thread

clive...

the pics have a sticky tape across middle of screen,,, hmmmm
came up very clean,, and tidy,, impressed with wetting method,, used a domestic cleaner called Nifti,, just the barest spray on tape,, then applied ,then squeezed out fluid,, found i could slide it around to posistion it...

I also cant work out why ended up with polarizer, seeming to have no effect, however when screen saver kicked in all test areas were perfect black...

cant reach the bulldog clip and polarizer with ease,, need to setup a way to rotate,, whilst deep inside,, grrrrrr

clive

Ok,, I will now proceed with doing a clean removal of a 12" panel's rear polariser,

this slide sized one is from the blue lcd out of a three lcd PJ,, it would be tainting results,, was good for proof of concept,,

however you can clearly see that the tape experiment is very successful,, no artifacts no bubbles, mmmmmmmmm luv it
clive..

Because we have not yet established the effect of the compensation film. We need to progressively remove one layer at a time in order to establish each layers effect on image quality. By taking every layer off at the same time, we can't honestly say which layer had which effect. We can presume, but we would never know.

Mark.

ok next victim, removal shiny polar bear intact..

as you can see in photo's

i was brutal,, the parted ffc's,, and also you can see where screwdriver is the part lifted rear polar bear,, it lifted very easily, but i want it to come off without bend marks too,, so gonna find something to help lift off,, and it left no residue on panel so far too,,,

clive

Well that's great news to me. The image did not show any color artifacts and the focus for the test piece was the same as the overall panel.

I have to disagree with your assessment that placing the final polarizer on the triplet is the lesser of the options. It actually will be easier to align in my opinion because the polarizer can be cut round and rotated on the triplet, as opposed to cut rectangular and aligned correctly the first time. There are no issues with an extra layer of glass or air bubbles over a large surface area. It also removes one layer of heat well away from the lcd panel.

I recognize that there may be some transmitivity loss from the angle of incidence of the collimated light, but the amount has not been established and the transmitivity in the pictures seems very adequate.

Also a reflective polarizer placed on the lcd side of the collimating fresnal should be very effective at increasing brightness, as you have said. If the collimating fresnal acts as a waveplate then as the reflected light passes it on its way back to the reflector it should rotate. This allows the collimating fresnal and maybe the lexan to to the job that a diffusion sheet would do ina backlight .

ok,,, whew
after having successfully removed entire sheet without damage to panel and sheet,,

i now have a 12" polariser from rear of LCD

interesting extra info

with LFusion screen showing as pics in other thred,, and rotating 12" polar bear

I can see display,,, from screen ummm

let me ,,, screen ten feet away,,, look thru sheet held up,, it shows the image

in effect if the screen is all white because you have no polar bear in PJ as per cut out section,, and you the viewer put on polar glasses,, only you can see it,,,,,


HAHAHAH new type screen,, ""invisible MMudse LFusion"" holy mackers,,,, mmmm anyone wanna get me a mackers,,, hungry here,,,


clive.....

OH shite,,,


it works on the screen side of the triplet

OH MAN ,this gets even more interesting by the second

my commercial one was creating probs because of dicrioc coating for blue spectrum....

wanna see a pic hehehehhehe...

wierd wierd wierd,,


it makes the LF screen ambient light tolerant,,, with all my lights on,,

image of section removed, is very visible,,,,

I am soooooo tempeted to rip glare of my $300 Benq 17,, for real GAWD help me....

Oh also you can see the full light fusion screen 8 x 4 foot sheet 1/8 inch mirror acrlic with MMudse surface treatment...

Do you notice more gain with the LF screen, when you start pushing more lumens to the mirror ?

it works on between triplet and field fresnel too..

my only concern was to test for true blacks with this setup

however careful rotation of polar bear, achieves it,, without losing the brightness,, its a balance between these two factors

however with a adjustable polar bear we have now have added a new control to our PJ's

brighness control / focus control done by optical adjustment versus digital,, which has its limits,,, well now we have extra tweaking optically and where contrats is lost due to brite increase,, we have our IE: Nvdia purevideo codec etc to alter gamma contrast brightness,, sorry too many thoughts wildly running here in brain, which has fully sparked up after 6 coffees and nicotines,, heheheh


clive.....

Oh shivers,, now I have to redesign a whole new concept PJ,,,,

hmmmm already have 22 ideas,,,, geezz helpppppppp !!!!

Absolutely,,, it suddenly kicks in,,, we must have been thresholding,,, any how from waht I gather PB max and MM have worked out a new formula,, I am dying to do that too,,,,, Time Time Time Time,, grrrrrrr

how ever we dont have the Time to argue Time,, hmmm what is the time? lost track of Time lately...

So you are proposing a triplet sized polarizer, in a device which rotates over the triplet opening? And removing the antiglare/polarizer side entierly. Thats pretty brilliant .

You need to set up some boiling green test tubes to fit the image mr inventor.

mmmmmm Mark is out there in the ether,,, processing info

did you notice the tape produced a blue bar at optimum polar bearisation

this the three polars working,, used that blue bar as true ref for best black with 2 polar section when it achieved darkest blue,, black was perfect..

another thought,, calibration using three polars,, hmmmm

geez i use lots of Oh's and PS's. and etc's

heres another... the glue is still on retrieved piece,, must clean it off now, heheheh

Dazzzzla you are here lurking,,,,

any thoughts,, with all the work you have done with wiki'ing

I have a whole new PJ half designed in my brain,,, I wanna do a complete new build,, incorporating four new ideas,,, Heeeelllppppp !!!!



oh damm,,, just rip off the glare crap

and just go to chemist and buy polar bear glasses,, would look wierd when a visitor drops by and see's five people sitting with sunnies on and they see a white screen..

straight jacket time is the thought that runs thru their mind

but what a concept hehehehehhe invisible cinema......

Image is reversed so you would need to implement a mirror somewhere correct?

Elken: You really need to try the planned orientation:

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...indpost&p=92105

Reflector
Lamp
Lexan
Collimator Fresnel
Polarizer up against panel side of Collimator Fresnel (if not too hot)
Air gap
Panel down to glass substrate (no anti glare, original polarizers, or compensation films)
Air gap
Analyzer (second polarizer) pressed up against panel side of Condenser Fresnel.
Condenser Fresnel
Triplet
Screen.

To be sure: You have split optics, correct?

As long as you satisfy the above parameters, your new projector need not be anything unusual.

Your MS Mud is preserving polarization because of the mirror surface. Normal screens will not. Only true silver screens.I should have patented. Which is very strange. I'm wondering if Elken has unsplit optics.As expected.I weighed the pros with the cons.The first time is the last time.The plan has no extra layers of glass or air bubbles.As does the plan.Transmissivity of the polarizer should remain the same under most incidences/conditions. Contrast and efficiency likely will not.Not without a diffuser. Judging by the angles of the polarizers in Elken's pics, I don't feel these can possible be acting as a wave plate. I would love some confirmation on this. My worry lately has been the thought that they are acting as something less than a half wave plate (180 degree phase shift). That would mean rather than a simple twist, you would get some other momentum conservation, such as circularly, or elliptically polarized light. Not good. If this is the case, then even the concept of using a reflective polarizer is hooped.

As far as I know, the half wave plate is the only thickness of wave plate that will cause a twist, and it's twist is 90 degrees. It would therefore twist any recycled light a second time on return -back into its original reflected plane. I maintain an easy DIY light recycler would be a simple diffuse reflector.

Mark.

yes split optics

that full test is harder to do,, and would require quite a bit of one way trip for some items,,, first exploring all angles of current structure

you have noticed I reversed the lappy so the first polar bear is intact, and post tranmission side is where current range of test are been conducted

now that I have pulled one sheet off fully and happily, just trying differnt things to remove glue,,, just need right item...

clive...

Oops. Forgot the rear polarizer needs removal. I agree. Everything should be tested one step at a time.

Got any Petroleum Benzine? If the polarizer is encased in protective/supportive films (no doubt it is), then you can probably polish the glue off. Does it seem water soluble at all?

Mark.

It's not a brightness control per say. The only name for the control would be "polarizer alignment control". And there is unfortunately only one correct point for it to be set for any projection. Adjusting the control from that point will simultaneously throw off hue, white point, and contrast.

Mark.