Elkin,

When you pull these films off are they still reusable. Or are there irreversible wrinkles in them. Also how hard was it to seperate the the polarizer from the other films.

The reason I ask is because I assume that the polarizers that come with the panels are probably top notch. If we could simply remove the antiglare layer we may be able to achieve about 90% of our goals.

A wealth of information in this ppt from microsoft. I split the url so the page doesn't run wide.

http://download.microsoft.com/download/
1/8/f/18f8cee2-0b64-41f2-893d-a6f2295b40c8/TW04016_WINHEC2004.ppt

Sorry guys if i am overposting.

This image is from a fuji report pdf.

Tony, our efforts here are to defeat the antiglare/antireflective surface applied to the panel. So in answer to your previous question of which type of film to apply, the answer would be neither.

What we need is a glossy highly transmissive film with a similar refractive index (ask Mark, not me) and an adhesive that can sufficiently fill the pits in an antiglare surface.

If you read the microsoft ppt above you will see that the person mentions that some lcd manufacturers are doing away with the antiglare filter. He said that this lcd's are called Glare Type.

So i did a search on gg and here.
http://www.google.co.id/search?hl=id&q=gla...btnG=Cari&meta=

plenty... and you have probably heard of some of the name brands. i.e HP Brightview technology.


last link!!

When Glare is Good
Filed under:


While many industries have been busy getting rid of glare from displays – including art galleries, car manufacturers and producers of “glare-gone” products for computer displays – it turns out that laptop makers have been busy going the other way.

Welcome the Glare Type LCD display.

Vivid display from MSI S270
Glare type LCD screens offer richer colors

Glare type LCD displays, also known as BrightView in the world of HP and Compaq laptops and as “Color Shine” with Asus, have glossy, shiny screens that – you guessed it – have a lot of glare. So why would a laptop user want to put up with glare? Because these relatively new screens offer a far more vivid viewing experience. Colors come out richer and more vibrant. Plus, might I add, the glassy finish of the LCD screens actually adds a touch of class to the laptops.

And the images do indeed come out more vividly. Dim the lights and pop a movie into a laptop with a glare type screen and it’s almost like watching on a plasma TV set (as opposed to the rather flat images that traditional laptop LCD displays offer). And perhaps this is why the new crop of glare-equipped laptops, such as the MSI S260 (reviewed in this month’s m|ph), the Asus W5 and the MSI S270 (both reviewed in the upcoming July issue), all offer widescreen displays: using these laptops for entertainment purposes is highly encouraged.

I can see myself!
This is how “glary” a glare LCD screen can be: it’s almost like a mirror!

There is a downside, however. First, glare-type displays may be a bother under bright outdoor lighting. Outdoor glare will get in the way of your viewing experience, and may even end up being annoying. In fact, laptops that use glare-type technology have to use very bright displays, or else the viewing experience is ruined… and this can lead to lower battery life.

But everybody loves these new displays, so it looks as if glare-type LCDs are here to stay. Heck, they might even end up becoming the de facto standard.

Next stop: glare shields for these glare type LCD displays?

http://blog.m-ph.com/index.php?p=200

Hmmm... perhaps I misunderstood your previous question.

The glare panel is new to me. I guess as they try to improve picture quality and backlight power usage in notebooks, they have come to the same conclusions as we have.

So it seems that we won't have to worry much because these Glare Type LCDs are hitting the market. Although it seems for alot of laptops at this point. One site I saw said that some CTX lcds are without the antiglare filters

Last Friday we bought a 1700 $ toshiba laptop with this super bright technology for the office.

I can't wait to go in tommorrow and rip it out and out it into my LL PJ.

Now I know what to ask my partner. I'll let you guys know the deal.

I googled some myself and a phrase popped out "true vibrant colors" thats pretty much exactly what elken was saying too ! ;-) so its not just increased brightness, also a couple of ads emphasized "sharp detail" ..again confirming elkens analysis .....

It is top priority in my eyes.
Looks like I'll have a descent application of the Magic Cover by 2021 .Are the tint glues usually pressure sensitive, or water activated? The magic cover glue is pressure sensitive.

Where would be best to purchase tiny squigees that would be good for the job?

I'm not particularly shocked by those Vikuiti prices. Just frustrating they must be sampled in packs of 10. At that I see it not worth taking any chances with the embossed or worse, the diffuse varieties.

SIMUL8TOR: I'm glad you bring the compensation film up again. It is one of those areas that we still do not have solid experimentation. First off, we don't even know if the BenQ or Elken's laptop has compensation film. What we do know (at least I think it is safe to assume) is that removal of the polarizers will likely destroy your compensation film if you have it.

My hope has been that the light will remain linearly polarized passing collimated through the panel. If this is not the case, and your panel does have compensation film, then removal is not recommended. I will say this: I am not confident in my hope.

There is actually what looks to be about 5 of the glare panels (Desktop Models) at my Future Shop. I've seen a laptop version at London Drugs as well. FWIW: These came up about mid way through this thread .

Mark.

Yep it sure does, now how about antireflection??

well, I was wondering abou tthat, seem slike the will be some light reflected off the glass nop matter what , does the antireflection actually allow it to pass thru the lcd or just make it less noticeable on a monitor?

This page offers some intesting info about adhesive selection and types of film.
http://www.gdoptilabs.com/optical_enhancement_services.htm

Actually, this page is better.

http://www.gdoptilabs.com/optical_enhance_tutorial.htm

Mark, tints and vinyls are usually pressure sensitive, the lighty soapy water and or rapid tac pretty much are for ease of installation, they make is so the material does not want to bite before your apply the pressure. As the material is already semi sticky to begin with, then the pressure breaks and releases the main tac. And with using water the material can float around on the panel and allow you a better chance of getting a very smooth finish.

And you can get squeegies at pretty much any sign shop, I personally like to use the 3M gold squeegie, it is firm yet has a touch of flex to it. You may also want to use a squeegie sleeve for a ap like this, I know 3M makes little sleeves made just for this out of smooth fabric, or you can just wrap some fabric around your squeegie and snap a elastic band around the middle of the squeegie in the groove that runs down the middle (horizontally on the squeegie of course, not on the ap face). I personally just use a small peice of smooth fuzzy side adhesive velcro (not the hook side) and I center it on the application edge and fold it over. I do that as sleeves tend to wear out fast, and the velcro strip does not. But for a small job like this it would not matter. When appling this stuff, you want to make sure you always make strokes in a way that you are just bitting into a bit of the untacked area forcing the air and water out. Trying to tack to much in one pass tends to increase your chance of a bubble. Like make one full pass through the middle of the sheet, then make full passes working away from the area you passed first, out to the end of the panel each way.

Also for ease of application, you could also lay your tint on a flat suface and apply a premask to the face of the tint (this has to go on very smooth to though, because if you get bubbles or wrinkles in the premask it will transfter to the tint. But it makes the peice of tint much more rigid and easier to work with if your not used to it, and it protects the face of the tint from the squeegie. As tints and vinyls are usually very thin, 2mill and 4mill are common. 2 mill is generally harder to install and it tends to conform to the surface more, so it would show the micro lumps of anti glare more.

Oh and it really does not take long at all to get the hang of it. Its a very easy thing to do. What I would do, is go to a store and buy a cheap role of car window tint. And cut it into peices that were the size of your lcd and practice dropping them onto a panel of glass etc. By the time you dropped a few sheets on you would have the hang of it no problem. And you could try a few different methods too, dry and wet etc. Then drop the glass into your box and she what looked best with light going through it.

Sav8Or1: Priceless. That site actually does commercially the encapsulation that we are attempting to perfect. And the science they specify is exactly in line with the deductions I have made. Sweet. I can't tell you how satisfying it is to read that. Very interesting to read their adhesive selection, and the importance that they weigh towards matching the refractive index as close as possible. I figured there would be little chance that this had never been done before .

MrWaxhead: Thanks for the detail. I'm still leaning towards Magic Cover as it is designed as a removeable product, and definitely has no tint. I'm not so sure that the ripples of the display would transfer through any thickness of cover, I figure it would have to be thinner than the adhesive itself.

Hopefully we will be able to get away with not adding the soap (to break the surface tension). I agree, I wouldn't want something like that between the layers.

Hopefully we can find a way to keep the triboelectric charges down. Maybe just go rediculously slow, and take many long breaks. The pros use air ionizers.

Mark.

Better yet! I just got off the phone with their lead optical engineer. He is willing to sell us the sheets to do this. ! sheet is 150 dollars. But it will cover a total of six 15" monitors. He would prefer to sell them in packs of ten.

He said this stuff will do exactly what we are looking for. But also cautioned that it should be applied in a very sterile environment, because we are projecting, which would magnify dust.

At that price, you could do one monitor for around 30 bucks.

Cool. Did you happen to inquire as to what type of adhesive the anti-glare would match with? That is, which adhesive has the closest refractive index? Another question would be how he recommends it be applied? A wet application?

It would be nice to know what our anti-glare coating is made out of,
What adhesive is closest matched (and the order that the rest fall in),
And what adhesive type each of our options is.

Mark.

I am not interested in being the one to procure this product. However, I could give the info to a moderartor or something.

It comes with the adhesive on it

He assured me that this product would increase the contrast, brightness and sharpen up our projections.

I know, I just want to make sure those guys aren't just using $2.50 a roll Magic Cover . "Yeah, sure. We'll send you a roll for a $150 bucks". .

Seriously, the adhesives that they list are readily available. It's just a matter of figuring which one we need.

Mark.

He offered to have them do the application$$$$ or sell us the stuff to do it.

Where did you find magic cover Mark? I checked joanns and michaels, and got some generic book cover. Turns out it isnt as transparent as tape, and is actually worse >.< (did a small test on scrap panel and overhead).


thanks for any help

Can we try this Product?

http://www.gilafilms.com/Residential/window-film-fade.htm

Blocks up to 99.5% of UV Rays
They mail out little sample packs if you ask

That's funny. I found it at Micheals. They had a lot of it too (Looks like a stocked item). You may be able to find it at an office supply store, maybe even Wal Mart, as it isn't just for scrapbooking. It is available online too. I am very surprised your Micheals didn't have it.Block UV and encapsulate at the same time. Cool find. Of course this only applies if the panel is using standard orientation. And none of the films we have found may have optimal refractive indexis.

Mark.

Here is the way I see it.

If you try to remove the anti glare you could destroy your monitor. Now you have the cost of replacing it. That is exspensive.

You could spend the money to buy your own adhesives and your own types of film. But if you read the info in the links, an adhesive that works now may eventually ruin your monitor. Now you have the cost of those products combined with the replacement of the monitor.

Or Someone could buy this stuff in large quantities and sell it in sheets. It will not eventually ruin your monitor. The only true worry is proper application.

We have people peeling off antiglare only to look for a new film to replace it with. Seems to me this maybe the magic bullet.

Like I said. I am not interested in procuring this product. I am a Cargo pilot and I am not home alot. The time that I am home isn't gonna be spent mailing these sheets out.

The anti glare removal is inherently risky, I agree. As for encapsulation, my bet: fear based marketing. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but you see it all the time. If you try this yourself, or without our product, things are gonna explode/dissolve. I respect that company for putting as much information as they have upfront, but can't see how a sticker on your screen is going to effect anything adversly beyond our speculations (given due care). The other company talked about stringent removal processes, and Elken pulled the thing off in his basement .

If we make sure our adjesive choices are non-acidic (Magic Cover probably is as it is meant for photographs) and non-reactive (We need more information here) then there should be no problem. Something to keep in mind is that the polarizers are supposedly encased in a protective covering, and the truly sensitive components are sealed between the glass substrate. Wether the polarizer caoting is non-permiable to the adhesive is still unknown.

If you have UV filtration then UV resistant adhesives is not much of a concern. And the adhesive need only handle as much heat as the panel will reach.

That's just how I see it.

Mark.

my bet: fear based marketing. I'm no conspiracy theorist, but you see it all the time. If you try this yourself, or without our product, things are gonna explode/dissolve.]

Well, In their defense, their salemen didn't want anything to do with it. He didn't want the responsibility of replacing our screens if they damaged them. His job is to sell the product.

It was an optical engineer at the company that said it was totally doable. I really doubt a lab is going to take something that cost $2.50 a sheet and mark it up to 150 bucks and expect to get away with it for very long. I believe he said the sheets were 1 meter square or something close to that.

I just found the stuff, It would be better for someone with a better understanding to speak with them. After all, LL has a store... This could be a new product. An optional enhacement. One sheet is 150 but will cover six 15" monitors. thats 25 bucks apiece.

Then again maybe we could just get adhesive from them and glue our UVsheets to the screen.

HMM can't get the quote to work

One thing I'm worried about. How do we know the antiglare can be safely removed on every lcd panel?

Thats the point of this product... you get the enhancement without removing anything. Like putting packing tape on the screen only this way better than packing tape.

There's the thing, it's actually likely that there is a cheaper alternative that does the exact same thing. I wouldn't place any bets on the idea that packing tape is any worse.

Mikau: We don't. Evidently, we also don't know if removal is good or bad yet. Or wether it is a notable improvement over encapsulation. Elken is going to prepare some rough side by side comparisons to help establish that one.

Put simply: there are still a lot of worrysome factors here.

Mark.

HMMM... I guess my confusion here is that 25 dollars... if... it did what we needed isn't that much. It's not like trying some unknown fresnel. If the fresnel doesn't work you replace without damage to other components. But glueing unknown stuff to a monitor could cause damage.

Btw, just looking around on 3d lens.com and they've got polarizers. (I mean polar bears)

http://www.3dlens.com/polarizer.htm

Plus ordering, cutting, distributing. Magic Cover is a 5 minute drive from my house, and costs $2.50. One direction of this research is to establish safe alternatives. We have test panels, we are gathering different adhesive covers to try. FWIW: the glue we are using is pressure sensitive and removeable. We are not trying to design a hazard here. Just trying to get all the options in place. The commercial application is one option, as is commercial removal of the polarizers.

Mikau: We investigated the 3dlens polarizers earlier. The #POA1 is descent, but not as good as polarization.com by specs.

Mark.

Uhh...does anyone got a real wide roll of packing tape? Let's say...11" wide?

That magic cover at Michaels sounds like good stuff to try.

I agree with Sav8or that $25 is not much and very much worth it if it works, but then again, who is gonna be the one to make the initial investment and then sell them? That's the question.

If we can get a solution off the shelf such as Magic cover that may not have the optimal index of refraction, but who's difference is negligible to the good stuuff then ....why not?

Yes, LL would be the perfect store to buy, but that's a decision they have to make.

Well said, Phutton.

Mike thinks he'll have some Magic Cover to try tonight.

Mark.

Like I tried to say before... I'm not the most qualified person to have talked to these people. Someone more knowledgeable should step up and talk to these people. They were very friendly and helpful. Maybe they could help with alternatives. He seemed interested in helping find a solution.

I didn't think to ask questions like: Does it offer any UV protection? if it did, byebye uv sheet. , Is there a difference in the way the product behaves if the light flows through the opposite direction? I just didn't expect to be passed to a head engineer.

The only reason I just don't post the guys name is that I gave him my name and the last thing I would want is 50 people calling him.

So... I've gone as deep into this subject as I have time to. Maybe someone will Man-Up and run with the ball. maybe I'll buy a sheet at a later date and try it. I was just trying to help.

And it is great help. No argument. I like the idea of using a product that has been designed for this purpose. I am only saying that I also like the idea of staying open to alternatives. It seemed that after posting the suggestion (and I love the suggestion, and again I found the site extremely helpful), that you were trying to pull the focus from alternatives research. At least that is how I read it.

Mark.

Actually, my ABSOLUTE only concern is that I see alot of noobs reading this thread and I'm affraid there will be a rash ruined monitors. In truth, I think the projectors work fine with out such a thing. But not everyone is as satisfied as I am and will continue to tweak and research.

It is interesting to note that Brainchild never posts results until they are conclusive. He and others are quietly working on improvements.

All panels involved shoud be disposeable test panels. Elken has been quite good (even obsessive) about posting disclaimers with every result he posts. This is a public effort, hence results will be posted throughout the process. There was talk early on as to wether it should be run largely through private messages, but everyone has had some great ideas to add to the mix. Nowhere have we said that this is the definitive thing to do right now. It remains heavily disclaimered, and incomplete.

Elken has even posted that he wishes the thread could be marked somehow with a big DON'T TRY THIS YET label.

Apart from stopping research altogether, I am open to any suggestions on how to keep this thread from beeing misinterpreted as some sort of instruction manual. It is a research log.

Mark.

Sorry if you thought i was using a Jedi mind trick here. I am not affiliated with this company. I have read were many people voiced that they would like to find a product like this and got a little annoyed at the insinuation that it may be no better than packing tape. Which may be the case, but we will likely never know.

I am actually interested in your results. I am more concerned about the adhesive at this point than the film.

But if you have an adhesive that allows you to remove and try several films then it shouldn't be that big of a deal. But I still think someone smarter than me should talk to this company

By the way... why not try using the UV film from the LL store? It would most likely work very well.

No adhesive.The alternative films all have adhesives built in, they are all removeable. My insinuation that an alternative may be just as good as this film still stands. It would be unreasonable of me to not give that a chance. I realize it is also unreasonable to not try a sheet of their product to be sure, but for practical purposes.

Mark.

Only magic cover they had was white >.<. Have since tried two different sheet laminating type deals, and both have not been as good as plain tape.


Elken could you please give me insturctions in a step by step fashion to remove these polarizers, i cant seem to figure out any decent method. (PM me if you want, this is not my projecter panel) .

whew,, took some reading catch up here.....

digesting info...

just to remind those who have come in late

applying a reflective transparent sheet over the antiglare surface, is the same principle,, as having a sheet of frosted glass, when you wet it,,, it becomes fully transparent.. hence more light thru,,

what ever is applied must fully 'wet to the surface' or it will not work,

and for another point, be careful as the antiglare surface could be quite resistant to some bondings "almost silicone like" or silky feel surface,,

when peeling the orig 'polar bear' if you take extreme care, it will come off ok, however you will get some creasing due to the pause's you make,,

all the laptop one's where more brittle like, whilst my benq was much more plyable,, after I cleaned the adhesive off it is like a piece of mylar,, even rolled it up overnight with rubber bands so it would reshape, as when I peeled it off i did it from all four corners,, and it tried to roll all ways at same time,, 'just the, after effects of peeling'

as to the final test,, I need to get a sheet of just straight polarizer,, with no other layers,,, included, as there are with all the test samples I have played with..

I have used a 60mm normal photography 'polar bear' and there seemed to be no problem with quality of Projected image whatsoever,,

only the glowy effect left and right side of screen,, these tests have mostly be done post triplet, ( screen side)

I have given a lot of thought on the glowy effect, and the conclusion is that it is an effect caused by the field fresnel at the extreme edges, (left/right only)
it is not a gradual effect,, it starts almost fairly quickly, in the last 5 inches of the projected image (100" diag screen)
interesting to note, without any front 'polar bear',, there is a image very faint,, sort of reversed colour,,, The field fresnel itself is polarizing the output from the bare side of LCD,,,

now if we take the theory of how polaroid sunglasses work it is sort of easy to understand why this is happening,,, sunglass's polarize rflected light only, and light at certain angles,,, sun in front and above us, us looking accros water,, light reflects off water,,, polaroid sunglass's block that light,, but we still can see enough of the scene due to,, light coming in from other angles which is not blocked...

with that said,,, I think the fresnel is mildly polarizing the light before it hits the
triplet the fresnel to remind those is made up of many prism like structures,, and there must be a point at which at the outer edge it is defeating the real polarizer,, in effect...

EDIT:::::: the effect is caused by reflection in fresnel,, doing its job ))))

Dazzzla,, interesting ray trace that would be !!!!

need a coffee,, mmmmm

clive

"when peeling the orig 'polar bear' if you take extreme care, it will come off ok"



both test LCDs ive tried,the bears have been very firmly affixed. do you use any solvent? do you do all 4 corners? thanks for any help

I have been reading this thread for some time, just haven't felt I had anything to
add until now..


In place of the packing tape, why not try static stick sign material, the stuff they
use to make the signs stores stick in their windows? You can buy it in big pieces
and its clear until they print on it.

I know static is dangerous near electronics. But I'm not sure if its actually harmfull unless it discharges. I don't know, I don't know much about how static electricity works.