But you would be getting a spruced up superduper version with all the bells and whistles.

So, it would be fine if a 0 degree polar was used on both sides of the panel?

Hear ya DAZZZ, take a tweak at a time. I understand Lucky Me is coming up with parabolic reflector tests, it looks promising.

sorry been busy here experimenting carfully on orig Benq anti glare,,

tried polishing tried allsorts of tricks,,, nup that surface is very effective..

tried some spray clear coat matt,, that worked till it dried,, heheh removed it

where is a can of gloss clear coat grrrr,,,,,??

hmmm even thought of laminating machine,,, Bond? hmmm Heat effecting...?


oh sorry guys,, just talk among yourselves there

Elken: got a CD scratch remover kit? You can even try buffing them out with toothpaste. How about silicone spray?

SIMUL8TOR: Nope, definitely need to have 90 degree and 0 degree, or two 45's (one flipped). Either that or buy too big and cut you own.

Mark.

Have you tried glad-wrap?

DJ

Mabey future floor wax. I used it on a boat once shinest stuf ever, says it never yellows.

even tried johnston floor wax hehehhe sivlo brasso,, and and wait for it

MR SHEEN

glad wrap no good needs to wet to the antiglare and fills pits

excepting for scratching antiglare it is damm tough stuff,, infernal grrrrrr

Shall we call MississippiMan in here to come up with some clear paint ideas hehhehe

(edit) whoa, varnish???

Don't forget, the refractive index should be as matched as possible. Even if the material fills and levels well, it is still only satisfying the one parameter. Of course, any solid is going to have a much closer index than air.

The parameters for an encapsulator for those just joining the suggestions:

1. Similar refractive index (basically density) as the anti-glare treatment.

2. High transmissivity.

3. Fairly heat resistant.

4. Good with UV/time.

5. No exposed adhesives so will not collect dust.

6. Easy to keep clean.

7. Easy to apply. Fully encapsulates the ripples.


And it would be nice if:

8. Could be removed easily.


Or if you have any suggestions on how to buff out the ripples, speak up.

Mark.

Ok worked on seperating the layers on test piece of polar,,,, removed the birefringment material,, tested as polar only now,,,, made no improve or degrading of projected image..

so it looks like just polarizer on its own will work for us

i also found a 60 mm photographic polarizer,, i had buried it worked well too outside triplet,,, but the glowy sides persist with all above tested items..

everything works perfectly between lcd and fresnel

my brain is about to explode... to summarize the last month in LL Land:
1) incredible new screen technology: maxx mud light fusion
2) a 30% increase in light output
3) a possible new light engine design (or several ..parabolic,recycling...) ie more light
4) invisible movies
5) 3d movies (sorry, I'm fixated)

now if we could only find a cheap 1900x1200 7"lcd and controller.... sigh..never satsified... ;-)...just when it seemd like the biggest decision was a vertical or a horizontal pj!

Thanks for your help and concern but nothings gonna bring that panel back now as an enraged idiot I smash a threw it away.


(SupraGuy Edit: Removed font tags)

30% increase claim is personal and subjetive, I wonder if elken can ask somebody for a luxmeter. The average trasmitance on a LCD is 6.6% trasmitancy. Would like to hear your achieved improved trasmitance meassured with the propper tool. As well as the contrast drop.

Try turning the polariser so we can possibly establish if it is being caused by the extreme angle that the outer rays are entering the polariser. Simply turn the polariser to the left or right and see if the glowing is reduced on one side tilting it up and down would be another good test just to see if the actual polarisation direction is cause the glow.

DJ

Rox Please dont challange me on that claim,, you have absolutely no basis to make such a statement..

theory does not count where I have put in more than 60 hrs worth of pure physical experimentation,, theory is 1% persperation is the other 99%

you may have challenged scubasteve,, and he may have played along,, but I wont tolerate it,,,

one you are not here and cant see what I see as proven difference,, and if you simply look back thru the 30 odd pages you will see and find that evidence for yourself... thsi has been built on the efforts of several people..

until you have fully built and physically experimented on something,, theory counts for very little if not put to the physical test,,,

and for another point,, I did it to my own panel which cost me $350 aud,, and I wouldn't do such a one way trip based on a false premise..

if you wish to add to this thread or any other thread,, please contribute,,,, DONT challenge others who have put in lots of hard yards PLEASE...

clive......................................

Dazzzla,, will talk on the phone,, much simpler,,, tomorrow perhaps,,,

it is panel related tho, connected with fresnel,,, between the lcd and fresnel,, does not exsist...

clive..........

Whats a thread on lumenlab without the Rox physics checker?


good work elken

[quote=mastermind,Oct 9 2005, 05:19 AM]
Thanks for your help and concern but nothings gonna bring that panel back now as an enraged idiot I smash a threw it away.

can someone please find Mr "Mastermind" and let him know that all is not lost with his panel,,,,

[/quote]

[/quote]

dam...sorry to hear that Mastermind, thought we could still help you. I had hoped I had caught you earlier enough by email with regards to our new found discoveries. Good luck, and hope that your not fully discouraged getting your pj up and running again.

sim

Elken I don't think rox meant to challange. I think he only meant that a 30% increase was just your personal estimation and he would like a definite evaluation using a luxmeter. Who knows, it may be brighter then 30%!

Elken: Not challenging you, but it would be "nice to have" documented numbers. It's clear that there's a dramatic increase in light throughput. We will have to realise, of course, that improvement amount will vary based on the individual panel involved.

Oh, and Rox: I have another datapoint for you. LG1750S LCD, 500:1 contrast ratio is 8.8% transmissive.

Actually, given the low transmissiveness of these panels, it's surprising that the improvement is not more.

So what is he shooting for , for a 33% gain, something as little as 11 or 12 percent transmissive?

no challenge.

I tahnked you on my first post for your wotk on it. I recon you are doing a good work in a unknown area till now. I just know that light quantity stimation is hard work, well, maybe some sperienced photograper can tell you hoe much light is there just looking with his eye.

Thats why I bough a luxmeter as well as Supra.

Now the 6.6% trasmitance average was considering both your meassuremt and mine supra. Is it what average values are isn´t it?

(i thought yours was 8%, mine is 5,2% this gives 6.6% average. I would like to have more meassuremnts for a truer average, well, they are welcome.)

Now, I still think meassuing the new trasmitance is positive test.

Elken: Do you have a camera with a light meter? Or a camera that shows the shutter speed it will be using?

SLR's have them.

If the camera is aperture priority it will show you the relative exposure times needed for the screen. The difference between two sampled exposure times will tell you the relative difference in brightness. Trying to figure out the difference with 2 f-stop readings (shutter priority cameras) is a lot more complicated (it can be done, but you need to know some built in factors of your camera).

Ideally you would run the tests on an entirely white screen, and then an entirely black screen.

Mark.

A general question. If we end up using a third party polarizer on the LCD and remove the OE ones and the polarizer controls the contrast wouldn't that mean that we are in control of the contrast and brightness of the LCD and the OE specs no longer mean anything to us? except for the speed of the LCD I would bet that most of the LCD's would measure very close. So a low contrast LCD might be great with a high contrast polarizer that might save money or be a good upgrade for people who have low contrast LCD's.

Earlier in the thread I speculated that it is possible LCD's are staggered based on polarizer quality. Much like how processors are bottlenecked. However, while this is one factor effecting contrast, there are (supposed to be) several other factors. Crystal properties (how well they can twist light), internal reflections, and twist precision would be some other factors of which we have no control. It would be most fortunate if the polarizers are a significant bottleneck.

Mark.

I guess We will find this out anyhow as people replace their polarizers over time. Some LCD may show a large improvment while some may just show a increas in lux. Interesting

Ok,,

Rox sorry that I might have seemed harsh earlier,, but the one thing I did not want too see was endless debate whether or not what the gain was,,,

Any gain measuered or unmeasured,, Is a gain,, and when visually there is a definite difference, measurement can follow later..

the results of pics speak for themselves....

I am also one for knowing precisely what the figures are too,,, I used work with and sell scientific, software and hardware,, including digital image anaylsis systems

I have done quite a bit of photography as well as (CCD based astronomical camera's which were peltier cooled down to -50 degrees)

and when time permits I will setup my Very expensive Laser light meter which reads between 200nM to umm think it is near IR,, but it reads in watts,, but I need to have very precise setup conditions,, to get accurate measurements

Time is my problem too,,, I also have to work and earn money,,, I work from a home Office/workshop,, so everything being here is also a trap...

clive...

Dazzzla, Mark, umm etc etc...

Tonight I will do a complete new range of tests,,

Unsplit optics,,, also this will show what happens to this glow or light leaks on left and right sides,,, apart from this post field fresnel polar bear works very well,,

if that part cant be solved, it is back to full size clean polar bear, between lcd and field fesnel,,, would be nice if it can be used at triplet, inside box ,, would reduce the cost considerable, and make it fully adjustable with ease,,, and yes within a narrow range, about 5 degrees plus or minus, before it changes the hue. it does act as an optical contrast adjuster,,

Mark, Elken, etc, etc..
Realizing that you all are still in the experimental stage is it feasible for us to start ordering some new polarized film in preparation for the modification once you have finalized this. I assume thats the case, many times Elken suggest we don't start peeling off our panels as of yet. Thats why earlier I brought up Vikuiti DBEF, I wanted to proceed ordering the films before they ran out due to the flood of DIY'rs caused by this new discovery, hehe.

I recalled Mark, that you may be able to get some variety of polars from your work. Are you planning on sending them to Elken for test's or will be able to determine which would be best. Sorry to sound a bit pushy or impatient, hoping you all will understand.

Yeah, what he said.

Since a fully blackened pixel will get lighter and a fully lit pixel will get darker as the polarizer rotates, I suppose you could call it a contrast ratio adjuster (You have narrowed the difference between blacks and whites). I can't see why that would be useful beyond it's optimal setting.

It'll be nice to pin down exactly what causes the bright edges. My bet is still on incidence angle. And my vote is still against triplet placement of the analyzer.

SIMUL8TOR: Keep in mind that surface encapsulation seems to be a good relatively non-invasive intermediate. I'm not exactly sure how big the difference is between surface encapsulation and full replacement, but it sounds like they both offer comperable improvement. It's my gut feeling that we are best to work towards perfecting that technique for now (And I think we've got it). Unless I have misunderstood Elken's results, and complete removal is pure gold by comparison.

QUESTION: does your scratch go away when encapsulated with tape?

I know you are joking, but seriously there is going to be no shortage of polarizer film. Polarization has it in 17" by 500 foot rolls. 3M sells in packs of 10 (17" x 17").

There are missing specs, and presumably dishonest specs in the mix. It looks to me like the 3M ones are the clear winner in terms of specs, because the transmittance is absurd (43%), they operate cooler, and they support a future light recycler. Problem is, the crossed transmittance is not mentioned. An area where polarization.com is still the winner in writing (though, once again, I don't think I trust their writing). polarization.com seems to win in terms of easy of ordering.

As far as getting polarizers from my work? I think I was misunderstood. What I was saying was it looks like you can get basically anything that 3M manufactures at Staples Business Depot (big box) by special order. I don't work there .

No response yet as to why Elken can't just order online. polarization.com is international. Nobody should have to spend the ammount that he has been finding locally. They use this stuff in $1 pocket calculators and it is wholesaled on 500' rolls. At the prices Elken is finding, that roll would be like $100,000. That would be a miserable business startup fee for polarization.com. And then the guy just let his kid roll around in the stuff:

http://polarization.com/shop/catalog/index.html

.

Mark.

What is the best way to remove the antiglare/dull polar bear?

Now that the efficacy of this technique has been proven, we have a problem. The last thing that we want is the success rate for projector builders to drop due to damaged panels.

At present this technique has not been endorsed by Lumenlab and I don't know if it will be. It is already a risky proposition to strip a monitor without damaging it, and this multiplies the risk. It would be nice if folks could build and enjoy their projectors a while before taking the plunge into panel manipulation.

The improvement that you may gain can be approximated by doing the packing tape test. This test in itself is a risk to your panel. I would not recommend you try it unless you are ready to part with some money to replace your panel.

As someone stated before; we should consider this an advanced builders' technique.

We have yet to establish the best methods to keystone. The placement of the polarizer is still in question and there is currently no data regarding panel viewing angle to tell us if we can tilt our panels when keystoning or if it will be successful to attach the polarizer to a tilted field fresnel.

In addition to the afore mentioned questions, I have more.

Won't this polarized light diffuse to a certain degree? We have always been concerned with stray light in the front of the projector (and that light was polarized) as it will negatively impact the projected contrast. Was this concern unfounded? If we now have a brighter pure white panel in our box is this not a pretty big issue? Wouldn't direct application of the analyzer polarizer decrease this problem as the stray light will be kept to a minimum?

Deathray: Stray light on the lamp side of the actual image source (The sub-pixel color filters) is thought to not be an issue. As for the analyzer side, it seems to me that the analyzer will not alter the ammount of stray light, or the direction. The analyzer is only able to alter the intensity. Therefore, it seems there will be no increase in stray light. However, the polarizer should be placed as close as possible as to reduce as much interfering reflection between the polarizer and the analyzer as possible.To add to DeathRay/Elken's comments: At a time when all the factors have not been thoroughly analyzed, it is highly recommended that panels be left alone until the research here has been completed. That said, here is the update on panel modification techniques. Both of these are very preliminary and may not actually work out. They could be laced with fallacy:

Encapsulation of anti-glare:

WARNING: there is no confirmation on how distilled waterproof these panels are.

1. Make sure your panel is thoroughly clean.

2. Purchase a roll of Magic Cover 750 Clear Cover self adhesive covering. The 5' x 13.5" roll should be good enough. Found at your local craft store. It's around $2.50 .

3. Purchase some pure distilled water. Found at the grocery store.

4. Cut a section of adhesive that is slightly larger than your polarizer.

5. Somehow get the adhesive side of the cover wet with distilled water. Spray/Dip/Etc.

6. Shake off all access water.

7. Apply adhesive cover to the panel and position.

8. Using a soft towel, spread the adhesive cover out from the center to the edges, such that excess water will spill out the sides.

9. Dry excess water with a soft towel.

10. Allow any remaining adhesive/water to dry. We don't want any electrical shorts (Though distilled water is a very poor conductor).


Removing the analyzer or polarizer:

WARNING: removal and results not thoroughly established yet.

1. Do all of the following in a fairly warm environment such that the glue may loosen a bit.

2. Using a sharp edge (preferably plastic) work a corner of your panel up such that you can get ahold of it.

3. Slowly peel the polarizer off as parallel to the panel as possible. As long as the glue is separating at any pace, do not pull any harder. Favor a slow removal VS a forceful one.

4. There should be very little residue left on your panel. Any residue can be cleaned off with (?).

Mark.

My concern is that the panel will be bright white and stray light will be able to make it's way around the analyzer and pollute the image. It would have to be framed and masked apart from the field fresnel and there isn't much room between the panel and fresnel. Attaching it to the field fresnel would be ideal if the pivoting assembly could be made lightproof and the polarizer is found to work well with a tilt. Otherwise It seems most practical to attach it directly to the LCD. Don't you think?

I cracked a test LCD, pulling the antiglarepolarizer off, and figured before i try on my other, i should get better advice >.< .


Magic Cover 750 Clear Cover self adhesive covering

Does this work as well as the tape?

Understood, but I have decided to proceed with full removal nonetheless. After all, Elken's gutsy move to perform this on his 17" Benq is living proof of how much we all want out of our pj's to perform even to risk damaging them.


Will definately do this asap for you. I was so caught up with the brilliance of the tape on my LCD that I totally ignored the scratch. Good catch on your part.


Yes, I found that they come in packs of 10 @17x17 but again making sure they are not of the diffuse, matte variety as you stated, guess I'll just have to order the regular and/or the embosse and do a trial.


Perhaps, I'll first try polarization.com. So far I was able to find the DBEF at 3M but there wasn't much information as to where to buy the 10pack, I did send them an email for locations around my area or nearest. Hope they respond.


Thanks, will check there as well. And no, I actually was leaning on the possibility that you were a 3m shareholder

I will do what I can to let you and all know if I acquire any polars, I would expect that you others do the same as well. Please don't hold back info that would be helpful to us all.

sim

Well put DeathRay.

Live life on the edge

grip it and rip it

I think what needs to happen is.... well how can I describe this? LumenLabs should outline a PJ Builder scale or Level.

Level 1, very basic straight path 15" LCD, 80mm triplet.
Level 2, folded design, 17" LCD?, ProLense
Level 3, curved design ( lol ), 15.4" LCD, SuperProAdjustableTriplet, Fresnel free Off-axis-parabolic reflectors, stripped monitor

Does anyone here see what I am getting at?

I hope you didn't consider my above theoretical removal instructions advise. Could you describe exactly why your panel cracked? Do you feel there was some error on your part? How could it have been avoided? Were you going as slow as humanly possible ? Were you pulling perpendicular to the panel or parallel? If parallel, was the polarizer folded over itself? How big was the panel? What brand, make, model? Did the panel shatter, or crack in a very particular location?

Sorry for all the questions, but we have obviously have very little information here, and the risks are now proven real.

Thanks,
Mark.

A better question would be, is the liquid between LCD glass plates toxic? If it is i might have cancer .

I pulled pretty harsh, and def. did not take my time. I have another LCD panel to practice on before plunging into the projecters. Im wondering if i shouldnt use a credit card on the glue seam, pull paralel, and maybe blow dryer heat the adhesive.

Careful with that heat, and parallel still stands as the recommended angle.

Do you have a Samsung tree in your back yard?

SIMUL8TOR: with no confirmation of difference (good OR bad) between basic encasulation and removal, I would think you should hold off.

The polarizer type is of extreme importance. This has not yet been established (and bear in mind the polarizer must be 90 degrees to the analyzer).

Mark.

Click to view attachment

Seriously, I'm not sure. I wouldn't think so, but this is actually a descent point. Soap suds are a liquid crystal.

Mike: I hope that isn't take 2 .

Mark.

I think i have decided to give that magic roll stuff a shot before removing layers again. Do you think it will work as well as the tape (has it ever been used?). Ill pick it up tomorrow and give it a shot if not, i have another test panel (dont ask).

Never been tried. Technically never been seen . Though I held the package in my hand. I think it will work awesome.

Mark.

ok....that is not what I want to see, thanks for sharing that with us - mikelish. pick up your shattered panel and go home

Ok, how about this....in the first page of this thread (geez, hard to believe we came this far) I quoted how much it would take for moniserv.com to do polarbear replacement which was $95.00 for 15.1" and smaller, parts and labor included. If I could inquire with them how much would it be just to remove both polars and supply us with new polars seperately, would that be of interest to anyone here??? I would hope that it may cost less considering they would not have to go through the process of gluing and calibration but that is left to be said.

Oh what the heck, I'll just inquire and let you all know. I'll also include removal for the 17"s for you small little man syndrome DIY'rs too. hehe