(I don't think that'll work, although the vertical, or other folded orientation has crossed my mind.)
EDIT: I actually looked at the pics. My Bad, it will work



Can't quantify at the moment, I'm desperately trying to get it mounted low enough to be contained in a coffee table design so I'm shuffling stuff left right and centre at the moment. Decided to flip the LCD around last night and as far as clarity goes, it's been my best projections yet, but that might be due to the modified fresnel locations also. Did the LCD orientation help? I can't say for sure.

One thing I did take was some light readings.

Config: reflector|Lamp|IR Filter|Polycarbonate|Wall - 1450lux
Config: reflector|Lamp|IR Filter|Polycarbonate|Fres|LCD(Power Off)|Fres|PJLens|Wall - 95lux

The standard LL triplet is really pushed with a 17" panel. The corners begin to fade pretty quickly. The best I got at the corners with 90lux in the centre was about 28lux.

Note: these figures are pretty low, I'm still far from optimal with my setup. I didn't want to go creating a box to have to continually mod it. The full adjustability of my frame helps me understand what I can and can't do with component locations, although it's precise alignment and light leaks leave a bit to be desired



One question, I'm sure it's already been answered (but I can't seem to find it), is the antiglare and front polarbear one sheet or are they separable?

Elken, do you have any leads on where you are getting your replacement polariser from? I was considering 3dlens.com as they were very prompt with my lens delivery. I might check out to see if there's any local sources.

oz i will get back later gotta deliver a computer for cust..

also i have been busy modifing pj for unsplit optics, and painting black all light engine areas too,, plus added U/V sheet between fresnels,,, wanna be sure of no U/V enhancement... so catch all little later with new setup and some results..

clive..

I just did a quick experiment to help gain some ground with encapsulation. I've been using one of the diffuser sheets from my backlight assembly to try different materials/applications. Since one side is smooth, and the material is similar in density, this is the best test platform I can find right now. If you get it right, the tape will (as expected) make that section of the diffuser sheet transparent. Very effective test model. Unfortunately even with wet application, I can't get the tape to bond completely, and thus there are a lot of inconsistencies. Seems a thicker adhesive may help. One observation is that if I hold taped off section right agains my eye I can make out lines of text on my screen. This is only the case with dry application. Wet displays quite dull. I am not sure if I have just not gotten all the water out or not. Give it a try.

It is a prime example of this sort of surfaces effect on collimated light. A diffuser sheet is the extreme example of what the anti-glare does, but nontheless, the effects of encapsulation are outstanding. Collimated light appears rediculously brighter (again, this is a diffuser sheet, not an anti-glare). It is truly shocking to see the difference in brightness when looking at a lamp in the distance treated and untreated.

Something I have to bear in mind is a technique that doesn't work on a difuser sheet could work on the anti-glare, as there are no where near as many voids to fill. That said, if we can find a technique that works on a diffuser sheet, it will most definitely work on the anti-glare (unless depth is different).

Hope everyone does their testing with these sheets for now. There is a lot of things to try, and this is a completely non invasive (simulated) way to test.

mikelish: that is frustrating that they didn't have clear. What were the other sheets you tried? Do you figure they just didn't have as thick of adhesive as you need, or did they just not bond well enough? Or did everything stick down and fill well, but it seemed the refractive index must have been off?Whatever is used it must completely encapsulate between the ripples, and then converge to a flat surface. In other words, there must be a gel like substance to conform to those gaps (unless a permanent filler is used). Tape satisfies this as it's adhesive is gelly like and can get right down into the microscopic valleys, while the clear tape portion acts to keep the top of the gelly flat. The same effect as if you put gelly on your display, and then sandwitched it down with some glass or other clear shell.

Static sign material does not have the gelly component, so in order to conform to the gaps, the whole front surface would need to flex in as well. This would defeat the second requirement, of having a flat finished surface.

The static aspect is probably best to be avoided.

But keep the ideas rolling in.

The stores open tommorow after the Canadian Thanksgiving. I'll pick up a roll of Magic Cover and give it a try.

oztang65: there are a ton of leads on polarizers in this thread. The basic rundown is: 3M is the best followed by polarization.com then d3lens.com. This is based on their published specs. edmundoptics.com also sells sheets. All of these sources need to be grinded out a bit more to figure who really has the best product.

Mark.

Someone have a dead/test panel they would try a few products on? Something to fill the rough surface other than tape/vinyl covering?

Rain-X, Turtle Wax, rattlecan clear coat. There has to be some crazy retarded way..

Regards
-RD

Yeah, I've been doing a bit of reading on the 3M stuff. There's so many different films available it's hard to know where to start sometimes. I'd still like to get hold of some of the reflective/polarisation films but I had a look at the price sheet posted earlier -

I've just emailed Rosco, the place I got my IR filter from. They list polarising film also (I would say it's a 3M or other barand they stock). I'll see what they can offer.

No dead panels at the moment, but I do have some automotive acrylic clearcoat that I could try. I do know, that being an automotive clearcoat, it does have UV blocking ability. As to how much UV it blocks I'm not sure.

I would envisage levelling the LCD, taping it up and pouring the clearcoat into it. I think the solvent used to thin it to make it sprayable might not agree with the antiglare/polarbear film layer.

I'm still hoping we can take the path of removing the a/g altogether - one less obstruction in the light path.

Guys, my last post points out the test similarity between anti-glare, and your diffuser backlight sheets.

Cut them into test sections/tape off and put some of these ideas to test. I just tried some armour all products. The wax idea sounds perfect.

You just need to keep in mind what the goal is:

a. Find a product having high transmittance, free flowing, and having a similar refractive index (density) to plastic.

b. Fully encapsulate the anti glare surface.

c. Have as smooth (flat) a finish as possible.

Mark.

I'd be guessing the clearcoat acrylic would have a similar RI to the antiglare. It gives a very clear finish and will definitely fill all the antiglare 'hills and valleys'.

Here's another thought. Can the antiglare just be polished smooth with an automotive cut & polish?

future wax look at this link the stuf is cool

http://www.ipmsstockholm.org/magazine/2005...ch_canopies.htm

I'm just trying to keep it DIY friendly, for the folks that don't want to strip the AG/Polarizer layers off. first thought was rain-x it's a thin wax, might have to apply it several times due to the surface, normal wax on wax off is a bit thicker and might do the trick. My thought was to put a layer on that would suffice not just add another thick layer in order to get a glossy surface. Apply it to both sides IMO That was us SANE!! people can brighten up our images.

I really wanted to grab the ol WD-40 and blast the screen, but then the thought of um.. dust gathering would just make it a B to clean.

future wax might not be the best choice it's too hard and might crack with heat

Wax is debateable because while the surface must be smooth, it must also be flat. Hopefully it coats thick enough to flatten out. If so, someone should test on a diffuser sheet. Then a test panel.

WD40 is pretty harsh.We have thrown this idea around a few times. CD scratch remover (polisher) kits or toothpaste are the thinking up until now. As long as it is not a chemical polish, one would think it would be a safe thing to do. I have good deal of confidence in this idea.

The problems:

1. Finding a non-chemical polishing agent, or one that we know will not permeate the polarizer.

2. Preventing cutting into the polarizer (though I would figure that is quite a bit deeper than where the anti glare ends, but we have not established this yet).

3. Preventing pushing too hard with the polishing wheel.

4. Getting the finished surface flat. Not entirely critical, but the flatter the better.

If we can settle each of those issues, I would suggest someone try and polish out a diffuser sheet, and then go for a test panel. I really like the sounds of this approach. No matching of refractive indices, non invasive to the polarizers, no peeling worries, no alignment, glare or compensation film worries etc. Has it's own set of worries for sure, but not on the same magnitude IMO.

Mark.

I mentioned an LCD scratch remover polish in about the third post in this thread. Someone linked to it somewhere in this forum. Supposedly it would break down the surface and fill the voids with the broken down material.

Wow, I just realized that this thread has been moved into it's own catagory "extreme mods". Very good idea... now we can proceed without so much worry.

Put simply, there are 2 things that disabling the anti-glare surface is believed to accomplish:

1. Eliminates Total Internal Reflection at the anti glare surface, for all light traveling from the color filters to the anti-glare. Total Internal Reflection does not apply in the other direction.

2. Preserves collimation. Collimation needs to be roughly preserved for a light wave to be bent to the triplet.

Deathray: The tape test is an entirely different story under collimated light. I just gave it a go with a panel I stripped last night. When tape was on the unstripped display, there was little effect. Upon testing with a stripped display, the difference was outstanding. The stripped display had a much more collimated light source. This rests right in line with the science established so far. When the backlight is diffused, the light will be diffused again (redirected in a number of random directions) at the anti-glare. This will do nothing to the overall distribution of light. Passing collimated light through the anti-glare will diffuse the light out over a large area. This results in a very noticeable difference in overall light distribution. It is quite impressive how much more preserved the colimation is when defeating the anti-glare. I imagine anyone's improvement estimates who have defeated the anti-glare are quite inline.

It becomes hard to imagine how a significant improvement could be had with full removal (Beyond polarizer upgrades and light recyclers).A small screen repair compound: Displex

Mark.

Hmm... so I may get a significant improvement yet. I guess I'll have to wait until the panel is in a projector to retest it.

So the thought process is leaning away from the complete strip... perhaps the gain over the encapsulation method isn't significant enough? I guess we'll have to see if elken2004 can come up with some hard numbers.

For most people, that's what I'm thinking. That said (until any problems are confirmed) full removal remains full glory. It is also the most efficient means of adapting a light recycler into the design (Though one can be added on to a stock panel, with a 15-20% loss). As well as a cooler polarizer, and upgrades if the stock polarizers are lousy.

But it is looking like surfacing is a very effective intermediate. Seemingly much closer to optimal than I had expected.

Mark.

hehehehe as I said from day one of accident..

but here I am full glory canidate.. no going back here

Yes, I noticed this as well. I was about to change the description to include some sort of warning and caution when I noticed that it was moved. Any idea of who may have done this?

ok back on deck here,,


deathray, I requested it be moved to advanced,, I did not want to feel responsible
for anything that I have genreated here by moving ahead,,, thanx to brain he did so very promptly.

I also wanted a warning so that newbies did not jump in the middle and ruin their panels thru no fault of their own, LL reputation and ours with it..

clive

Good call Elken.

Question, when you stripped your panel did you affirm that you had a diffuser in the layers or did you just take the chance and proceeded the strip. I mean how important is it to have diffusers if they were in there or not...Mark?

with apoligies, to you sim with my request, about shifting, the thread,, but the way it was going,, and after all my ummm MAD experimentation,,, got worried about those who would be premptive without reading 32 odd pages,, which also would be a real pain

No need for apologies clive, this push to get this to the rest of the DIY'rs - newbie or the experienced is everybody's responsibility here who have contributed in this new discovery. You and Mark, especially have every right to make sure that it is done accordingly and in best interest to this thread including LumenLab. sim

sim sorry responding to to your question now,

the peeling takes all layers off at same time,, the layers are very well bonded,, and are nigh impossible to see,, I used a special mircoscope to view edge on

have not even considered parting benq one,,, but have seperated old test pieces,, highly unsucessful..

one layer, is like brittle cellophane. the other is mylar like.

.

I just didn't expect this kind of diffusion. I mean this anti-glare treatment is a full blown diffuser. Having that in the light path is not good. Not good at all .

Elken: Your image was so lousy when you moved the anti glare polarizer away from the panel, because the anti-glare it was acting exactly as a diffuser would (sampling a larger portion of the image).

I have a bulb on the floor, and my panel is overhanging such that I can see the bulb shining through the panel. With tape, I would honestly say that bulb looks twice as bright as without. Now lets assume that normally around half the diffused light still makes it to the panel (cautious), then I would say a 25% improvement is not unreasonable at all.Do you mean compensation film? The only expected diffuser is the anti-glare, and for sure he had that. Sometimes they put it on the other side of the panel. Sometimes they split the phase shift over two compensation films doing half the work on iether side. I am getting the idea that most of the time, there is no compensation film, as the panel is of a precice thickness such that the crystals throw a full 360 degree phase shift. Thus exiting as linearly polarized (same as entered) light. I figure the really funky crystal types need compensation film because thickness is not variable. So if extra layers can be found, they are probably just the protective coverings on the polarizer.

Mark.

ok real stinky PJ at the moment phewwwwwww blackboard paint curing under 400 watts,,


but pleased to say now have unsplit optics,,

outstanding image,, I must say,, i am gonna have to tweak light,, as going from split to unsplit have slightly brown edges,, easy to fix tho

i am not sure as lamp has been going 6 mins,, but the damm image is even brighter still

glowy edges have gone totally,,,,,

posistive confirmation about earlier post of mine today of fresnel acting by rflective 'polar bearing'

the scrap piece of lappy rear shiny polar is crudely taped on trippy,,

and not even the slightests abberation,,,,

positive confirmation unsplit optics, with small 70mm polarizer works 107% ok

if you want an example of how it is,, when typing here (looking at brite 20" monitor), then I look ten degrees to left,,,where my screen is in front of where sit, with a flourescent light above me, the white of my EZrunner panel which if you look at where I had taped test on one of my pics,, it is so white it sort of blinds you, so to speak,, plasma like,, simple as that

clive.......

you guys can take it or leaveit,,,, but

sorry for double post,,,


Hey DEATHRAY, can you remove the extra for me please.

ok new notation with unsplit optics i moved the lamp 30 mm closer to the condensor fresnel,,, holy smoke a completely even lit display,, unbelievable,

I personally think I might stick with unsplit optics,, for my case

aw geez now I have to adjust reflector too


Mark,, ello ello,, hope you have been taking notes for manual there


clive......

Elken, got any more pic's to satisfy our temptations??? hehehe

In the car buciness I use a 2000 grit sandpaper to sand the clear coat and then I buff it out with a high speed buffer and3M Perfect It II polish.

Might this work on the LCD screens Anti-Glare to get it smooth ?

I do a rather peculiar data recovery process on certain cd's which MIGHT work. Basically I coat the read surface of the cd with polyurethane ( sprayed , 2 or 3 coats ) and then polish like jonjandran does. Since Poly is nothing more than plastic, it polishes up pretty nice. If you start spraying before you hit your target and end after you pass over it, you can get a fairly even coat. Most brands of Poly will stand fairly high temps and shouldnt attract dust if they are polished.

Just a suggestion...poke in the dark...

I know nothing about polyurethane .... what particular brand do you use? does it come in spray cans or do you use a seperate sprayer thing?

You can get it in spray cans for small applications. You should be able to get it just about anywhere that sells spray paint. For larger applications you would spray it using a compressor and spray gun.

The only concern I would have is making sure the enviroment you spray in is as clean as possible. Any dirt particles that get trapped when spraying will probably show. However if you wet sand and buff it that would probably take care of them. That is how it is done in the auto industry.

Exactly. I was thinking that the gloss coat would work pretty well. I SEEM to remember a self leveling type as well. Does this help? I was thinking for the more DIY on the less expensive side, this might be a better alternative than the tape.

Not sure I have seen self leveling. After thinking about it some more it would probably have to be sanded and buffed due to the orange peel effect that the clear coat can give. To get rid of dirt and orange peel are the main two reasons people wet sand and buff cars. After sanding and buffing the urethane looks like glass.

ummmm


just a point on sanding,,, buffing,, or anything like that,,, you cant do it,, it is a mylar material, that does not respond well to abrasion, or friction heating,,


the process has to be a non invasive, or aggressive approach

overcoatingpasively isd the only way,,

and it has to be a very thin material,,, glass has a refractive index, altho I think you could use a glass like "microscope glass"

clive...

If that is the case then I don't think polyurethane would be a good choice. Also some urethanes have a yellowing to them. Mostly the cheap urethanes that I have seen.

ohhhh elken.........

O-oh. Sim, what have you done

SIMMMM !!!!!!!!

cant stop laughing....looking at your names light up after showing u this...hahahahahahaah


(edit)...wait....still laughing....need a smoke...heheheh ahhahahhaa

So....what about clear silicon. All the other suggestions sound good to me also.

Rain-x
Polyurithane
acrilyc
wax
..Any other I missed

Does someone have the top film or a bad lcd they can do multiple strips of this stuff on for a screening experiment.

Elkin?
Mark?

I'ld give it a try if someone shipped me a piece of the diffusion sheet.

ok.....hehehe....heh,....I did ask...heheheh for....somebody to .....STOP ME!!! HAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAA

Dazza,,,,

watching PJ TV,, you lnow how we were talking about unsplit optics, with 'polar' hanging off, trippy,, well that glowy effect on sides, and how it gone,,

well now further investigation,,, the whole panel has a luminecense,,, not real bad but there

I think unsplit,,, the converging ray path, is effecting post fresenel and lcd polarization

still a damm fine image,, in fact if you look at most commercial PJ's they have the same effect,, I have a Hitachi here,, similar lumenosity...

to morrow night will put polar bearagainst panel again,,, the fresnel acting as a kind of polarizer, is still happening but ithink it has now evened out across entire display... grrr I think you know what I mean..


clive

Sim apparently has a spare film now that he can test.

no worries buds...its the cheap panel that I was gonna send to Mark in the first place to do the experiment until Elken stepped up. It's a KDS 15" from ebay for around $45.

Wanna a strip by strip showing while I was doing it?...hehehehe

hes gone absolutely MAD,, heheheheh

welcome Sim to the exclusive club....

You guys are starting to scare me.

Elken
So split optic with polariser hanging behind the triplet = left and right screen glow.
Split optics with behind the field fresnel = no glow.
Un-split optics with polariser hanging behind the triplet = whole screen glows.
Un-split optics with polariser on top of LCD =? (Tomorrows test).

Going by the pattern the whole screen should glow, maybe. Have to do some more thinking.

Test Results from tonight.

I used the 1280x1024 Test Jpeg and just set it as my wallpaper, got rid of the taskbar and icons:

1024x768 Test Jpeg.
1280x1024 Test Jpeg.

bedtime now.

Edit: I just looked at the pdf again, Lumens should read Lux ( it's too late....)

the common denominator,, is purely the converging rays to a focal point,,,

seems as though polariztion compromise in that config...

but hell ignoring that the image is fantastic..
mind you there is effect of fresnel showing at focus point,,

must check critical align of unsplit fresnels, as we spoke about on phone...

since adjusting the lamp position, the overall eveness of brite is great too..

mind you another thought is about the lamp being at best brite (195mm) might be causing this effect too,,,will back it up tomorrow as first test,, your view on that last point??

clive

here is a pic,, non paused of tv prog running under mce2005,,

unsplit optics polarizer hanging off front of triplet,, damn crude

the background lumy does not show in pic...