I want to reserect this discussion.

Over at this thread....

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10164

JanJordan has stated that his antiglare-removed-WUXGA panel has a 10.7% transimission of light through the LCD..... Now this is impressive!!

It is the highest so far, for any panel.


I was thinking that it might be possible to soak the panel in something slightly less viscous than Water, to see if its possible to penetrate the harder anti glare surface somehow....

So, has anyone else managed to remove the antiglare on this panel?

You may want to try a 10% solution of water and TSP (trisodium phosphate). Avail in hardware stores. TSP with water is a surfacant that breaks chemical bonds and may soften the adhesive.

This is only somewhat related. I bought a Sharp WUXGA panel that was cracked for $10 just to fool around with. It had NO anti-glare and it HAS a Reflective Polarizer on the back. I just find that interesting as that is the exact combination we all want. Too bad it was cracked.

Could I ask you guys which controller do you use with this panel ? Where can I get it and how much ? Thanks.

It's $350 and you have to wait for a group buy, which just ended here:


http://members.cox.net/minoten/faq.shtml

Might you have the part number for the cracked panel?

Someone listed a controller for sale in the Trading Post

http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s...=0&#entry130384

I should mention, you might want to check which version of controller it is.

I polished my anti-glare and noticed something differnt.
The surface is smooth, and the reflection is still diffused from normal viewing position.
If you look for the reflection just above the screen the reflection is clear, whick tells me the the surface is smooth.Is this something different on our LCD? Other LCD's seem to be able to have a clear reflection
from normal viewing position when polished.

After more polishing, this is what I'm getting.

Well, i'm going to be stripping my WUXGA panel (Sharp LQ154M1LW12).

Starting measured transmission at the screen = 3.2%
Sunlight transmission test = 5.7 - 6.4% (depending on the side measured from... reflective side higher.. go figure )

First layer to be removed was the shiny polarizer from what used to be the backlight side of the panel... I did not take a picture before removing this layer, only an after pic... it peeled right off, but left behind some "junk" on the panel... don't want to rub it to try to remove as i'll be going for the TAC removal anyway, so this will all come with it... presumabley...

some pics...

stripped reflective polarizer
Click to view attachment

closeup
Click to view attachment

... continued ...

I examined the crossed polarization of the reflective layer to see just how much light was being lost here... no lux measurements, just something of observational interest for now...

single layer of reflective polarizer removed
Click to view attachment

two pieces of removed polarizer - crossed
Click to view attachment

Next I tried to find the edge of the TAC layer... I think I found it, but need help ID'ing the layers... anyone with some help here ?? The TAC layer feels a little "springy" or "rubberlike", not nearly as stiff as the reflective polarizer layer just removed. I believe I will give this a soak for 2-3 hours as Jonjandran had done.

Click to view attachment

any ideas ?? does this look correct ?

Thanks,
gs

GS, I would think so. The last layer I would assume is always the polarizer and it's TAC under it. But just to help you out these are pics of the layers I pulled off from the rear. The first set is the first layer I pulled. It's plastic like which I thought was the TAC but notice how it polared in way when twisted. This may not be the same with your WUX but it may provide some idea of what you may be dealing with.

After pulling off the first layer there was this mirror like film just like the pro reflector's finish. This was a bit more harder to remove. This is when I thought I was removing the polar but I noticed that another layer was under it. Notice the polarizing appearance when twisted as well.

There after I didn't want to pull anymore off cause I think I was pushing my luck. So, I'm not sure if the rear of the panel still has it's TAC or not on.

Yes there is a TAC layer underneath the Reflective layer on the Sharp Wuxga. And the reflective layer actually is 2 layers glued together.

It's VERY thin and I had to use a razor to get the edge started. It's thinner than a piece of paper and perfectly clear with not tint.

Great....now it looks like I may have to prep for surgery again.

Sim, yea the pic in the lower right in post #113 looks similar to what i pulled off already... not exactly a polarbear, but same sort of extinquishing effects... I think i'm going to need a microscope to identify the layers ! ...

jonjandran, maybe that explains what i'm seeing... the reflective polarizer kind of looks like it's been torn apart... almost like I only got the top have...

I started the very edge for TAC removal (using a new razor blade to pick at the edge to get things going) and believe I now have the polarizer exposed... i'm soaking right now so i'll see in another hour or so if things get any easier...

a/g removal will be an entirely angry animal by the sounds of this thread... but i'll be doing another transmission test after I'm done with the reflective polarizer side, just to see where i'm going with this...

gs

ok, here are the results... water soak was completely useless... I soaked for 3+ hours then attempted to start stripping... I ended up taking this off....

Click to view attachment

what was left behind was glue. this is the exact stuff that was between the LCD glass and polarizer on my CMV-520D panel... it is NOT easy to get off... used my fingers and "rolled" it off by pushing and rubbing endlessly... 4 fingers with blisters... not fun at all... I tried using adhesive remover, but it only removed the stuff i'd alreay rolled off of the panel... the rest of it stayed well adheared to the panel... and now everything stuck like adhesive remover... gross... (it'll all be worth it in the end though, right !?)

Click to view attachment

... as my fingers were badly blistered from all of this glue removal, I tried using a drafting eraser that I had... it worked pretty good, but I soon found that it leaves smudge marks behind, unlike using my finger... oh well, they won't project anyway, right !? ... at least i've got all the glue off the panel... glad that is over...

Click to view attachment

here are pics of the stuff removed so far...
1st layer (left)... pretty much just peeled off w/o problem.
2nd layer (center)... soaked for 3+ hours, but this glue is imperviable to water... pulled off with firm/hard pulling and lots of care not to break the panel (much like removing the entire polarizer on my CMV-520D panel)
ball of glue (right)... this is some of the glue collected from "rolling it off w/ the fingers"... impermeable to water, and hard to penetrate w/ adhesive remover...

Click to view attachment

[drum roll] ..... installed panel back into sled for a test drive of the new and improved panel...

results:
LCD 'on' in PJ ave lux = 15.8
LCD out of PJ ave lux = 491
transmissivity = 15.8/491 = 3.2% !! ARRRRRGGGGHHHHHH !!! not a single bit of change, well except for the fact I CAN see the eraser smudges on the screen :angry: .damn. lots of time/effort sunk here, and no results... yet...

i'm curious now to the fact if i've gone far enough down... I guess at this point i'm thinking polarizer replacement... still not happy with the transmission %... there is always elkens theory about light spectrum effecting transmission, but at less than 1/3 of 10% reported transmission, i'm far away from that...

perhaps a water soak on the layer i've exposed now ??

looking for any input here...

cheers,
gs

GS, I'd stick to what you have now until we get the true skinney with these lcd's transmissiveness.

Your description of how you removed the 2nd layer coincised with what I went through. Removing it was extremely difficult as if removing the entire A/G itself. Funny though it didn't leave the gluey residue you had. I haven't done a transmissive test yet since my 15" Viewera panel underwent it's A/G surgery. So we'll see how it compares to your WUX seeing it had the same films removed. Thinking about it, perhaps you should do an lcd in and out with your lamp on just to see if there is difference compared to doing the sun test. As I recalled I was in the 5% transmissive doing the sun test before A/G removal. Just FYI.

Yes, for now i'm done stripping anything (for one thing I need my poor blistered fingers to heal !)

The results I just posted are with the LCD in and out of the PJ... this is giving the 3.2% transmission value. I will need to do a sunlight test whenever the sun comes back out (rain forcast for the next couple of days). So far I have 3.2% with the LCD in and out of the PJ both before and after the strip, and a sunlight transmission of between 5.7 - 6.4% before the strip.

The more I think about the physical composition of the panel, the more it makes sense for the WUX to have a lower transmission... a 15" panel with 1024x768 resolution has a pixel density of 85 pixels per inch, while a WUX panel with 1920x1200 resolution has a pixel density of 147 pixels per inch... my feeling is that there is more light being blocked due to there being more "grid". These added division lines between the pixels are actually reducing the light output... there is a 73% increase in pixel density, while producing a 37% reduction in light throughput ?? ... this could be the reason for the reflective polarizer (light recycling), it is required to get good brightness on the panel.

I should say that my contrast/brightness settings are factory default (50%) and RGB settings are all 100%.

On a slightly differnet subject: ... i'll be firing up my 6500K bulb for the first time tonight... wonder how that will compare with the 4000K Ushio PS T15 with the transmission numbers... if any...

I'm pretty sure that the layer that was left on with the glue on it has a TAC layer underneath it. I had the same thing , a layer with the sticky glue on it after I removed the 2 reflective layers. I then did a 4 hour water soak and removed the Tac with that horrible glue still on it.

For those looking for a tester:
http://cgi.ebay.com/Sharp-Inspiron-Latitud...1QQcmdZViewItem

did you ever test the 6500K bulb? is that a plus-rite or an iwasaki? I'm wondering if the sun test is different because of the different spectrums of the sources.... maybe the rgb filters are narrower on the WUXGA and the sun has a lot more ofthe right wavelengths?(elkens new thread is thought provoking

I need to rework my lamp mounting to make it more "user friendly". I've already done an initial burn on the 6500K lamp (plus-rite), but it's LCL is much shorter than the Ushio PS T15, so I finally have to break down and make a more adjustable design for lamp changes. I'm also going to be testing an HQI-TS bulb... i've been talking with AV about it and he's going to try running it on an eballast and a 600W HPS ballast.

I have some idea's on the low transmittance of the WUX panel, but I need to do some tests first... what i've found by testing the panels (CMV-520D vs. WUX panel) out of the box (unpowered) that the WUX is only about 10% less transmissive... the question is why is it so much lower when installed in the PJ ? I also tested the panels using 5 different light sources, 100W incandescent lamp, 14w flourescent lamp, halogen workshop light, Ushio PS T15 and the sun... all sources appear to give the same results... just don't know if my selection of light sources is different enough to expect different results (if indeed the LCD's color filters are narrow pass)... my testing thus far is only producing more questions than answers... my mind is teeming...

i'll report my info in appropriate threads once I get organized...

gs

well, one thing I have noticed is that when my panel goes into "powersaving" mode(entire screen goes white, I'm assuming it powers off) it is more transmissive than the white screen I use.... I can't remember if I tested my transmissiveness with power on or of..looking forward to your results....

yes, I too found that power "on" and power "off" were different for my 520D, but this was not the case with the WUX panel... (mysteries continue...)

oh another note... i'm going to go for the TAC strip on the WUX today or tomorrow... I want to be rid of my "eraser" marks... [grumble grumble]

so, while in the pj, there was no difference between having the lcd powered off and a projected white screen like from pgen or a gif?

ok, there was a "slight" difference.

for WUXGA panel in the PJ, light measured at the screen:
ave lux 'on' = 15.7
ave lux 'off' = 15.9 (1.3% brighter being 'off' vs. 'on')

transmissivity calcs: (490 is ave lux with LCD out of PJ)
'on' = 15.7/490 = 3.20%
'off' = 15.9/490 = 3.24%

... i'll say these are the same...

for 520D panel;

ave lux 'on' = 18.4
ave lux 'off' = 20.4 (10.9% brighter being 'off' vs. 'on')

transmittance calcs:
'on' = 18.4/359 = 5.1%
'off' = 20.4/359 = 5.7%


Just to note: you might see that my "LCD OUT" measurements are different for the two setups... The 520D had ave lumen of 359 with the rear fresnel 200mm from the c/l of lamp... after moving the fresnel to 220mm from the c/l of lamp, my measurements increased to ave of 490 lumens, which is how the setup was when I tested the WUXGA.

well, go figure........ guess its hard to make any kind of general statement about these lcd panels! but in the end I guess what it actually does in the projector is what counts..good luck on the continuing film removal!

I'm sorry if I'm ignorant, but what is wrong with letting the panel (outside of the *exact* area of the AG) get wet? A little known fact is that distilled water is not electicly conductive. If you let the panel dry before you plug it in it shouldn't harm anything...

I'm not about to dunk the pannel in a bucket of water or anything, but it seems like you could.

Hirudin, you would need to look over the main a/g removal thread for your answer, but basically it comes down to this... it has been tested that a drop of water sitting in the middle of a piece of polarizer will do no harm, however, when water is allowed to reach the edge of the polarizer, water is drawn in from the edge by capillary action and will ruin a polarizer. If you simply dunk a piece of polarizer in water, you will completey destroy the polarizer. There have been people who have already (literally) dunked a panel in water. results... not good. Keeping water away from the edge of the a/g is not the bad thing, it's the edge of the PVA layer located directly below the a/g that is the concern...

hope this makes sense.

cheers,
gs

well, the eraser marks on my screen were really getting annoying, and after readings jonjandran's post above, I decided to try removing another layer on my WUX(GA) panel. Well, this strip was pretty easy compared to removing that aweful glue layer. This was also the thickest layer yet. I did a 3 hour soak with distilled water and paper towels. The hardest part is always the edges as you don't want to get too close with the water for fear of ruining the polarizer, but if you don't get enough water, the edges are just a PITA to get off. In my pic you can see an area that I "forced" (very small and on the egde) and the polarizer material came up. The sheet did not come up in one nice piece, but constantly tore while taking it off. (jonjandran has reported the same results). When I got to an edge that tore and needed to start over, I just placed paper towels on the exposed edge and waited about 20 minutes, then picked at it with a fingernail and it picked right up, without any damage to the polarizer. (I was pretty gentle)

Anyways, as a reference I measured the thickness of the 3 layers removed thus far...

1st layer = 0.07mm thick
2nd layer = 0.04mm thick
3rd layer = 0.09mm thick
24# paper = 0.11mm thick (measured as a source of reference for people)

and one pic of the start of the strip... I used a razor to find the edge of the a/g layer... If I had to do this again, I would soak the entire edge thouroughly with water for about 20 minutes before trying to find the edge, this would make the start of the strip go better, and would probably not be long enough to damage the polarizer... I think... (famous last words)...

Click to view attachment

ah yes, results... well the eraser smudge marks are gone, which is nice, providing better overall light distribution (which is pretty common sense). No increase in transmission. (didn't really expect any). I'm feeling pretty confident now, so i'll probably start on with the a/g side of the panel today or tomorrow... just don't know about this animal...

cheers,
gs

so you haven't removed the ag yet? just the reflective materials and tac? so theres some hope yet for your transmissiveness?

Was there any visual projection gains made if not transmission?
I have not stripped my panel yet, only polish A/G. I'm am following your work closely as others I believe.
Keep up the great work.

Good work Gadget

Don't you just love how much fun stripping the WUXGA is ?

mikyd,
yes. to this point i've only been dealing with the rear reflective polarizer material... I believe now I am finally down to the actual polarizer layer... nothing left to strip... jonjandran can attest to this as well...

MarcoP,
the largest improvement thus far has been the removal of the 3rd layer, and that is mostly due to the fact that I put smudges on it with the eraser trying to remove the "glue from hell"... now that I don't see the marks on the projection, it "looks" 10x better, but probably not any different than before I started this whole expedition... my idea is to strip, measure, strip, measure, etc... until I find *what* if any layer provides the best results... I would have thought that some improvement could be measured by now, but alas, that is not the case...

jonjan,
thanks. sometimes I wish I never started down this road, but i've got 3.2% transmission and i've got to find a solution... what is boggling is that i'm getting 5.5% with a direct lamp test, and 5.8% with the sunlight test, but go to the PJ and I get 3.2%... i'm starting to think the a/g has a significant effect on 'on screen' transmission...

... more tests to come tonight... then the a/g strip from hell begins... water soak starts by 10pm tonight...

maybe i'll need to setup my gmail account to accept donations in the event I "donate" my LCD to "the cause" ....

iscrewedupmywuxgapanelforthebenfitofscience@gmail.com

-gs

good luck, i await your results in the pulling of a perhaps wuxga trigger

Gadget:

Put me down for a $20 donation in the event you kill that momma! BUT, in return I want pieces of all of the layers to scan.

I'll even pay for postage this time. Be careful!!!

" sometimes I wish I never started down this road, but I’ve got 3.2% transmission and I’ve got to find a solution... what is boggling is that I’m getting 5.5% with a direct lamp test, and 5.8% with the sunlight test, but go to the PJ and I get 3.2%... I’m starting to think the a/g has a significant effect on 'on screen' transmission..."

I think the antiglare has two functions one to stop glare but the other is to stop the eye from being able the see individual pixels.

The debate over why it looks brighter but does not measure that much brighter can be described better if you look at an individual pixel and then what happens to the whole screen.
The antiglare will provide a small amount of diffusion of each pixel, for some panels around 20% well this will make each individual pixel 20% dimmer and spread the rest of the light around to the surrounding area. The greater the magnification factor the wider the spread will be. If you use a light meter on the area it will show the same lux because the average power is the same

When the LCD in used normally and you look at it this makes the pixels blend some but the light from each pixel is barley spread to the pixel next to it which is the same color most of the time and when it is not it helps to soften the edge some. Magnify this effect 20x and now the stray light is spread far away on top of pixels that are most likely not the same color so they make a new incorrect color white. This happens over the whole panel so the vividness of the color will be less.

A light meter will show almost the same light level because the light is not lost it is just spread around. There will some light that will be lost because of absorption and some will miss the triplet. What you end up with is a panel that makes more white because there is a lot of light where the RGB colors add to make white when they should not.

If we could measure an individual pixel I think I could prove this but we all know how much better it looks.

That being said I think for some vary large screen PJ adding some diffusion could help to get rid of the screen door and being able to see individual pixels. In just has to be .5% not 20%.

well... it's over... my WUX has been stripped of it's ag layer, and my projection is looking good now. It appears that there was only one layer on the front of the panel, and that being the a/g layer. I did an 11 hour soak with distilled water. Before the soak I cut a small piece in the corner right down to the glass, then picked away at the corner until the a/g layer was identified... they I laid the papertowels and started the soak.

Here is a pic identifying the layers involved...

Click to view attachment

As with jonjandran the ag came off in several pieces. I learned a lot from doing the back side of the panel first, so the a/g side went without incident... well except for grain that was produced...

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

Click to view attachment

I don't believe that water got into the edge of the PVA, but it might have... I just think that soaking for 10-12 hours then having to pull on a/g layer pretty firmly to get it to come off causes this grain. I see it as water weakening the PVA then applying force. I think this has been speculated before in the main a/g thread. Anyway, it luckly does not show on the projection at all... although when looking at the LCD in the box from an angle it is very evident, however, looking at it from the angle of the triplet, you don't see it at all...

In the end, my lumen output at the screen increased by 42% (ave lux went from 15.7 to 22.4)... this was mostly due to the diffusive nature of the a/g layer and creating a lot of light spilling around the triplet. With the a/g removed, the light is almost all captured by the triplet. I still need to do a sun transmission test to see if that has changed at all... my bet is that it maybe changed slightly... too much rain here now, so i'll have to wait for a sunny day to get final results on that aspect... i'll report that in the transmission thread in Intelligent Video Projector Design area...

Oh yea... I did manage to pick up on small area of polarizer on the projected right edge of the screen, so there is a permanent white mark there ! Ooops... I can ignore it for now, but will try and repair it with a piece of polarizer I have lying around... it will be tricky to get it the right size/shape and installed without a problem... maybe it won't be too hard...

gs

I just had a idea, could we protect the edge of the PVA by coating it with wax before water soaking.
Maybe some other kind of water repellant would also work, eg WD40 .

i'd thought about using silicone, but I know I would have gotten that everywhere... plus, all it takes is one tiny leak somewhere and the water will get drawn into the PVA layer. Wax is an interesting idea though... placement will be the problem as it is critical... plus I have a feeling that it will get all over the place as well.... hummm.....

gs

In our lab people use a hydrophobic pencil of sorts to draw a perimeter onto a microscope slide beyond which aqueous media dropped onto the slide will not migrate. Perhaps something like that would help? I've not personally used one nor can I find one at the moment but I can look into it if it seems promising.

D, if you find one, i'd be willing to give it a try with a dead panel I have sitting here...

gs

The wax could be solid like a candle or carnuba wax which is semi-solid.
This could be rubbed into place along the edge, any spill over onto the top could be cleaned carefully with alcohol.

Turns out we can't find the last one we had. And we don't use them any more. :angry:

BUTT ( big butt ) you can get 'em here: http://www.emsdiasum.com/microscopy/produc...rkers.aspx?mm=8

But they're freakin' expensive!!

Now, as I was typing this my lazy coworker came walking in with our last one! The thing smells EXACTLY like the model aircraft "dope" I used to use. I think maybe this "dope" might work just as well if you had a fine brush and steady hand?

Testors probably still makes it in the teeny little bottles at hobby stores? Just a thought.

I don't know the true nature of these pens but maybe the link above will getcha goin'.

Edit: Eh - I could likely mail you this pen if ya want? After all, we figured it was gone anyway. I'll try to paint the edge of the busted panel you already sent to see if it looks promising.

I think the big risk in any kind of solvent based hydrophobic "paint" will be that the carrier seeps into the layer(s) and futzes things up. The water method seems the way to go realistically speaking and just be dang careful ya don't get any seeping.

You could try the wax sticks used to fill nail holes and scrathes in furnitures.

OK, now that I've actually read the whole thread, I'd like to ask about a couple ideas I've had.

I'll start with the easy. If you're going to use a knife/razer to start the peal, why not go with the thinnest razer you can get? Here are 2 common razors, the one on the left (with only one edge) I think is called a safety razer, the other one is a double edge razer.

I mic'ed them both; the safety razer is 0.009" and the double edge razer is 0.003" (double edge razer is 1/3 the thickness). Check out this shot of the edge of each one...

Sure, it's not going to make a big difference, but it is something.

Here's a few ideas I've had to possibly make the water-soak method safer...
1. Paint rubber cement onto the edge before starting. It'll peel off easily with the AG.

2. Wax is an interesting idea. Seems like it could also be painted on like rubber cement. It could also be rubbed on dry. Bee's wax might work good for this. Auto wax might be a good idea, it's meant to preserve paint and whatnot, so it stands-to-reason that it probably wouldn't hurt the polorizer.

3. Would it be worth it to mix a little paint stripper into the water before starting the soak? Seems like just a lil' stripper would probably soften up the AG, without completely breaking down it's structure. Heck, if the PVA(sp?) is used in anti-chemical gloves, maybe a little Goo-Gone in the water would help...

4. If the AG is trying to flake off after you start to peel it up, maybe it would be better to wedge something underneath it, instead of pulling it up. One trick it to use dental floss, pull the floss back and forth to "saw" through glue and stuff. I think this might be reserved for a last resort. [edit]No, this wont work none[/edit]

Welp, that's all I can think of for now. I'll probably start soaking this new monitor I got before going to sleep...

My fifth sense is telling me that the long soad was the reason for my polarizer grain. What I will try next (with a cheap WUXGA panel I picked up on ebay... which works; to my surprise !) is try a 2-3 hour soak with warm/very warm water... I think this will loosen the adhesive nicely... and make the a/g more flexible, and the whole process quicker... i'm just not sure about what effect, if any it might have on the polarizer (PVA) itself... maybe make it more prone to damage during the a/g removal process...

... just some thoughts i'm having at the moment...

Take your time, and good luck.

- personally I like the "safey" aspect of handling a single edge razor, but your observations are well noted. I found the edge with a single edge razor even before I started the soak... just wanted to be sure where everything was first...

cheers,
gs