Wowy wow wow wow I just stumbled upon the Asus PM17TU. Color Shine glare-type panel technology does imply that it lacks anti-glare, so thats a huge plus (even though reviews of the monitor seem to think this means it has some special Anti-Glare technology, so I don't know what to think). Also the Zero bright dot 1 year return policy.. Apparently Asus is good about replacing monitors with any pixel defect. do you suppose this would apply to the open box versions from new egg? If not you can get both the PM17TU and the PM17TU with ZBD protection on pricegrabber for around $200.. only $10 more than open box version at newegg

arizonavideo, how does this monitor look? have you stripped it? I'm very interested please let me know

Newegg did not ship the LCD, they said it was damaged and nothing else so Im still looking. I will look at pricegrabber.

Tenderhart; Looking at the LG it looks like any other LCD It is nice but I don't see any differance in contrast than any good LCD.

Ok I found some information on The Color Shine technology, which is the same anti-reflective screen as Acer CrystalBrights, Sony XBRITE, etc, so here is some info

An anti-reflective LCD screen does not have a rough matte anti-glare surface. Instead, it has a coating of an anti-reflective (AR) chemical (mganesium fluoride) that actually reduces reflected light by lowering the Refractive Index of the surface of the LCD panel to a number closer to that of air. This process is known as index matching. This reduces the reflection and refraction of ambient light as it hits the surface of the LCD display. Also, because the surface of an anti-reflective LCD has a smooth gloss finish, the image is crystal clear rather than distorted.

---------

so it doesn't have anti-glare in the traditional sense, but its still treated (with magnesium fluoride). Anywho, it looks like the Asus screen would defeat the pitfalls of the typical anti-glare film.

magnesium fluoride is 'transparent' from 0.140 um (ultraviolet) to 8.0 um (infrared), but I wonder if it has any effect, even the slightest , on transparency of the LCD panel compared to a screen with zero glare layer (i.e. AG removed). Also, what effect might it have since this anti-reflective side will be facing the bulb..

here is a link that dives into a technical discussion, with diagrams, etc

http://www.screentekinc.com/asus-colorshin...d-screens.shtml

here is a link that discusses the general differences between normal AG and anti-reflective screens

http://www.screentekinc.com/pixelbright-lcds.shtml

I also finally found a useful review of the monitor

-------------
I ran DisplayMate on this monitor, to get a bearing on how well it performs when put through various test patterns. DisplayMate first lets you tune a monitor to get the best possible display settings and then runs it through a series of test patterns to test everything from color, brightness, and contrast to screen geometry.

As expected, it scored a perfect 10 in the geometry tests (like majority of the LCDs). The color reproduction was brilliant too with absolutely no bleeding of color. The text quality was crisp too. The contrast was exceptional; arguably the best I have seen. The screen was bright yet soothing. It doesn't hurt your eye one bit. You can thank the Color Shine technology for this. In the horizontal color registration test there was a slight mismatch of red and green strands.

It passed most of the tests with flying colors. And just as I was about to head for the conclusion, I noticed an unusual glitch; something more common to LCDs of the past. The view angles weren't all that great. If you raise your eye level just above the screen, sitting 2 feet away from it, you will notice a change in contrast; the white shade gets affected the most. The white background gets a greenish tinge. Similarly, when you move sideways towards the edge of the screen, an orange tinge creeps in. This is noticeable only with the lighter shades. The dark and bright shades stay untouched. Also, the sharpness remains unaffected. This was the only real drawback in this otherwise brilliant LCD

----

so the only downside is the viewing angle which doesn't come into play for PJs anyway.

The main reason I was looking at the assus was not just the antiglare but the high brightness but if you look at the power draw it is also one of the highest too, so it may just have a very bright backlight.

The samsung draws 32 watts( I think) and makes 300cd the assus draws 48watts and makes 500cd

with that high power consumption I have to image the brightness is a characteristic of a powerfull backlight moreso than a more transparent LCD panel.

actually I would think the anti-reflective coating might even be a plus for us since we are shining one big-a** light bulb at it...... and isn't that the same stuff that they use to coat lenses(ie triplets) ?
hmmm...they must appy it to the polarizer(or TAC) ? if they apply it to an added piece of glass it might hurt transmisiivity a little but probably not enough to notice...

I guess the 100 million dollar question is.. does the anti-reflective surface reflect more light, or allow more light to enter the LCD compared to an LCD with zero anti-glare or anti-reflectant?

edit: well ok thats actually a pretty stupid question. Obviously it would not reflect more light because then there would be no reason to use it.. it would be completely counter productive!

2nd edit: ok well how about this.. the anti-reflectant will still reflect some light. then I assume the LCd panel/polarizer will also reflect some light. So what is the net reflection of the anti-reflectant and the layers below compared to an LCD with no reflectant/glare film. I.e. light that passes through the anti-reflective, but bounced off the LCd/polarizer and is lost forever.

I know how you feel.... and thinking about it, it must be an added pane of glass since it mediates between air and glass, they'd need to use something else for plastic(TAC, polar) ...but still, it depends on how much reflection takes place at the light/lcd interface.....

yes, see 2nd edit

well regardless, I think its safe to say the amount of light entering the LCD at the appropriate angles for transmission through it will be better with an anti-reflective layer compared to an anti-glare.

jeez I need to think, then post. I edit probably 75% of my posts, and edit 30% of those a 2nd time.

so my quandry remains.. anti-reflective Asus with unknown fcc issues.. or easy to strip 730b with PITA anti-glare composed and deposited by the devil.

if you get the asus I'll send you my light meter to test the transmissiveness ...

I'm going to take the plunge. I'll let you know when I'm going to strip it.

I'm taking a similar plunge. I was looking into buying either a:

ASUS MM17T 199 CAD - 600:1 contrast , 400:1 brightness, 8ms
BenQ FP71V+ 179 CAD - 500:1 contrast, 470:1 birghtness, 5ms, senseye
LG1752T 199 CAD - 1400:1 contrast, ... f-engine

from a NCIX.com sale

I wasn't sold on the f-engine, but I did see the benq fp71v+ in stores before and it looked really nice. I am not sure if the MM17T had a shiny screen or not...maybe it did. ANyways, I chose the benq because I remember seeing it next to a 700:1 contrast samsung at staples and commenting on how the 500:1 looked much nicer. I was also tickled by the prospect of not having to rag the LCD to get rid of antiglare. Hopefully they don't have a special coating that will reduce transmissiveness.

The MM17T from Asus has a 'normal' LCD screen with anti-glare. Only the PM17TU and PM17TE have the anti-reflective (shiny) screen as 17 inch monitors. The BenQ looks nice though.. looks to be a discontinued model as the website shows an FP72V+, but that means nothing. they mention it has an anti-scratch protection film though which looks to be rough similar to anti-glare. following that however, they mention is increases contrast so that would make it somewhat superior. no idea if this was present on the fp71v or not

I dont think it has that. The 500:1 contrast is a little dissapointing...but I have to keep reminding myself to stop concentrating on figures drummed up for marketing.

so how much is this 1200w bulb ?

Well if you get the Asus please let us know how the strip goes It would be nice if there was no ffc problems.

It might be that one reason that most of the LCD makers have gone to the 6 bit controlers is to use less contacts on the LCD and only have the conections on the the bottom of the LCD so maybe we will have less ffc problems.

I got a good deal on my Phlips MSI 1200 watt lamp for around $75.00 The HMI 1200 watt at on e-bay some times for $104.00 They only have a 750 to 1000 hour life.

I have not had a lot of time to work on the light box but I will be doing more next week.

cool, I'll send instructions and the meter when you're ready....

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who likes the HMI 1200 watt lamps

Lex Luthor has joined LL and brought his own Lamp

come on AV, we know thats you......

I have started to work on the light engine I have the NEC cracked LCD and a S1-6 600 watt ballast running a HTI 1200 watt lamp at about 1100 watts.

I have twp 120mm fans cooling the system but it was not enough I had to place my 10" Colortran heat glass between the rear Fresnel and the condenser lens. These blocks a lot of light but for now this is the only way.

I took some LUX readings of the screen. The screen is about 2.3M squared.

198 208 145
211 343 210
172 276 243

For an average LUX of 222. With a screen of 2.3= 512 ANSI lumens.

I took a picture of the screen

Click to view attachment

And one with a 500 watt lamp next to the screen.

Click to view attachment

The HTI 1200 lamp setup

Click to view attachment

I am happy with the brightness of the screen, it looked just fine. I have a lot of find adjustment to too but it was nice and clean.

The pictures were by hand no tripod. I have a good PC to use now.

I tried to remove the heat shield and the LUX was a lot higher but I could not finish the test before a black spot formed on the LCD

The light set up was a 600mm/220mm fresnel w 6" x 165m condenser colortran 8" reflector.

It's not me but I stole his lamp

Congratulations. Cooling definitely seems to be a factor, but the light output is definitely impressive. 500+ lumens is (IMO) a new LL benchmark. With vigneting at about 50 ROX that's going to be very watchable as well.

I'm impressed.

I feel a need, a need for some refrigeration.

Very cool . . . err . . . hot AV.

This is a really silly comment but is that REALLY a 500W pole lamp next to your screen???

I warned you on the heat You have to pull all air out from around the lcd, so it passes the lcd on both sides, and goes out right behind the light. No pushing in and out bullcrap. 1000w and above is no game. It takes some serious planning and protection. Even with that, you will probably have to have a heat shield like you do, at 220mm. At 330mm, you won't.

Bye the way, congrats on being the first over 500 lumens..
Damn you!

AV: You of all people need a dichroic coating on the rear of your pre-con and a longer freakin' FL on your collimating fresnel. You'll soon be needing a fireproof projection screen at this rate.

Edit: miedosoracing beat me on the longer rear frezzie comment during his edit.

AV, test your far side of the lcd for me. Your LCD will only take about 20-25,000 lux at the highest number even with good cooling. Anything over that, from what I have tested, needs direct blowing of air from fans onto the actual lcd. Then you can rise to a higher level. I am not sure on that amount. But just rolling air you can't go much higher than I have. But, with the IR glass, that will let you bring the lux number higher, without the fan, since you are only elimenating the heat portion.

a mod should merge this with the "An Idea That May Be Very Impossible, ... and potentially end in a spectacular fire" thread

The 1000w and more is not a problem at all, just the need for special cooling. I have had my 1000w running at 1100w or something for months.

I had a slight problem when adjusting the lamp at the triplet. This my old target that I used to see the lamp image at the triplet. After I put out the fire I started to think that I might have a small heat problem.


Click to view attachment

If you look at the size of the whole you can see that I did not have the triplet all the way full this what I ment when I said that my arc is too small. To fill the triplet I need a shorter rear fl which I have done.

My heat sheild blockes 80% of the heat so with it heat is no longer a problem, it is made for a 1000 watt lamp so should be up to the job.

I have been thinking about the heat thing for a very long time.

You may be the first person to ever break a triplet from heat

Yes in fact in that lamp I use a 3200k pro hallegn lamp because I have 20 of them and I like the temp better for lighting the room. It looks yellow next to the screen but the screen might be 6000K or so.

The open PJ lights the room fairly well but the screen still looks OK but to have that much stray light and have the image look good you would have to have a gray screen.

This is the first test I have more to do for more LUX I can use a 550mm front fresnel and this will work with the small lamp.

I may use a 165mm and a 400mm condenser at the same time for a shorter fl too. two 165mm did not work.

I did see a sharper focus on the edges with the smaller HTI lamp than the HQI I wonder if the whole long arc thing makes a real differance?

ahh..now theres a question I have asked a couple of times before (not to you, just generally) whether we can use 2 lenses together.... my concern was whether the combined ummm "focal center"? of the pair would have to be as close as the plano surface of a single lens would have to be ...... in which case, unless the lenses were really thin , it would be impossible to do ..so using 2 6x9s might be as good if not better than a 6x6.5? since obviously we are never going to find a steady supply of 6x6.5 (I just wrote to www.spotlight.it, thats the last one I can find that uses plano-convex in spots instead of fresnels)

edit: could you clarify what you mean on the long arc comment? like longer arcs might not be good for focus?

More than one reputable member - IIRC - is convinced of the virtues of a short arc versus a long arc in terms of image sharpness.

I also have been saying it for a while. I noticed it mostly since I used the 1000w with the 55mm arc. I could really see the difference. Arc is important...

A couple of points.

AV: You don't necessarily want to "fill" the triplet. You want to make sure that as much as possible hits inside the triplet. A small point is actualy what you really want. This is (of course) only possible with as small an arc as you can get.

For those of you saying "330" for a collimator: I've already done the math. That simply will not do. If AV were to change to a 330 collimating fresnel, the square law would halve the lumen count. He'd be doing worse than I am with 400W. This is producing the lumens that it is BECAUSE he's using a 220mm collimating fresnel. (I'm sure that there are those of you who've seen my math in the old "1000W bliss" thread) So while this may solve the cooling problem, it's cost in lumen output is too high, and will make it not worth the trouble of having the 1000W+ lamp.

Again, I want to offer congratulations to AV for building a 1kW+ setup that I believe can be reproduced by other builders to get similar results.

I agree with the don't fill the triplet, because if you do, the light bounces off the sides of the inner triplet, giving double vision. Second point, I humbly disagree. It will lower the light output a lot, no question, but you will still be higher than a 400w at 220mm. The condensor makes more light hit the lcd. So the distance will lower the output but he will still be roughly 300-350 lumens at 330mm fresnel. JMHO. I also agree with the 220mm is the best way to go, never disagreed with that, just the half of the lumens and less than a 400w was my only disagreement :-)

I agree with miedosoracing, because he is using a precondenser, the light may be somewhat less with a 330 collimator but not to the extent that using a 330/600 combo without a precondenser would be, in that case , yes, a 220/600 would be about twice as bright as a plain no condenser 330/600 ..... and my guess is that he has about 55% vignetting because of the condenser...

You say what you think... Where's your numbers?

I can prove that you get 1/2 the light intensity at 141% of the distance, that's pure square law. I'm giving some benefit of the doubt to the precondenser at that (330 vs 220 = 150% of the distance)

Given that I've demonstrated 400+ lumens with a 400W lamp, I can't see how he can maintain a better average than that with the increased distance.

Maybe I'm wrong, but someone will have to build it, or find a way to show me the math to theoretically prove it starting with a working model.

As it sits, I'd say that AV has a proven, working 500+ lumen projector with his current setup. The problem of additional cooling with the setup as it exists is solvable. To my way of thinking this is the best approach.

To the best of my knowledge, there is NO WAY to increase the distance from lamp to fresnel without negatively impacting light performance. This may be what AV wants, in making the cooling problem easier/quieter, but I think the stated goals, and the whole point of using this high-power lamp is to get more light into the projection. Had this not been so, I think he would have used the 330mm fresnel from the start.

Should someone build a projector using a 330mm collimating fresnel and still get 500+ lumens projected, I'll gladly offer congratulations there, too. In the meantime, I still stick with the theory which has worked for accurately predicting my own experiences so far.

ok, I'll have to go back thru my plog and get some comparable numbers, probably in the morning.... but unless I'm wrong, the square law applies in non-focused light systems, double the radius of the light sphere and you will have 1/4 the intensity , true? however when you are using a precondenser, the light intensity does not fall off in the same manner, otherwise having a lens would do no good.... I agree that in an unfocused system your numbers are true... I just don't see your argument that whether or not a lens is there makes no difference, use a simple spotlight as an example, take the lens out and its pretty obvious the light intensity of the lensed spotlight is radically differnt than the lensed spotlight...same in our light engine... once the light hits a lens, the square law no longer applies in the same manner as in an unlensed system...
again, in comparable systems (220/600, 330/600 no condenser system OR 220/600,330/600 precondenser system ) the shorter rear focal length fresnel system will be brighter but between two different systems (220/600 no condenser AND 330/600 precondenser) your numbers will not hold....
edit: fixed my example

edit2: to be clearer, I am not saying that the 330/600 precondenser system will be equal to the 220/600 no condenser system, but its not going to be half the intensity(roughly) as in a simple 220 vs 330 comparison using the square law...

edit3: ok, heres what I will do this weekend, I'll set up the 220/600 no condenser, then I will add the precondenser and switch to the 330mm fresnel and then post the numbers ... in both cases, should I shoot for max lumens?

I did a test with two 165mm condensers lens and placed the lamp 15mm away it had the beam spread from first condenser lens just like normal maybe a little tighter, but the second lens was so far way it focused on the lamp and projected an image in the light pattern.

For a condenser system with two lenses the second lens needs to have a longer fl to look through the lens in front of it. I just happen to have a 400mm that might work for this.

With a shorter fl condenser the lamp will make a tighter light cone and a smaller light cone will need to be placed further away from the rear fresnel. I could then use a 330mm rear Fresnel with NO loss of light in fact I would gain light if I could remove the heat glass.


The 1200 watt HTI lamp is lower in LUX output than the MHI 1200 that I'm planning on using so I will get more LUX when I switch to the biggerMSI 1200 watt lamp.

I don't have any cooling problems with the heat glass installed. The Colortran heat glass is true heat glass and blocks a lot of heat. I do have another piece of heat glass I might try fronm the 1000 watt opaque PJ that the Buhl lens came from, it is thicker and more Tranmissive than the Colortran glass.

This is the 10" Colortran heat glass, Yes it is two pieces. You can’t see the line as long as the glass is awayfrom the rear fresnel focal point.

Click to view attachment

The LCD cooling is only one low speed 120mm fan with a thin box around it to make the air pass through the LCD/fresnel gap.

Click to view attachment

I plan on using three 120mm x 25mm 3000 rpm panflow fans for the LCD air box for about 200 CFM. The prototype is cardboard.

I like this setup because the LCD will still have cooling when I make adjustments or open the box. The fan noise is contained in the box and I can let the air in from anywhere in the front of the box. The lamp will have it own air box too and the ballast will have it own cooling system also.

I have a lot more fans than lamps

EDIT I found out that my power supply running the 1200mm fans was 12vAC ! after replacing the transformer with an 16v one I now have a jet plane cooling system.

My vote goes to a pre-condenser set-up as the clear winner.

DJ

With a pre-con set-up the rear fresnel is not and issue because the inverse square law now applies to the pre-con instead of the fresnel.

DJ

exactly(of course I learned that from you I htink the best I've done in real life is 150 lumens with 220/600 no condenser and 130 lumens with 330/600 and the condenser... but thats with the shed condenser... if I had a wider precon I'm sure I could equal the two... with any luck the strand reflector will be in today and be big enough to use for both setups and I can get a definitive test done this weekend

Judging by the piece of paper you set ablaze, I'd reccomend running the air past the triplet!

Awesome work, and I'm jealous.

Yup. Adding the pre-con with the 330 (over just a 220) led to a 19% decrease in lumens for me, and I don't have my pre-con close enough to the lamp to get more output... nor have I adjusted my LCD-fresnel distance to maximize light. (as of now I haven't moved the LCD fresnel as I want true comparison number to the 220 setup). The 19% decrease also includes 1)losses associated with passing though the pre-condenser glass and 2)an extra layer of lexan I used to mount the fresnels with a 10mm gap. My hope is that once I get everything tweeked I will have a pre-cond/330 combo that will be +/- 5% of the 220 setup.

gs

All of this is interesting sure the number might fry the brains after a few but based on whats been said I'm happy I swtiched from 330/550 fresnel to a 220/550 combo. I knew things got better simply becuase I was able to watch the thing in the day and I was able to turn down my lcd brightnes from 70 to 55 and still have a birght sharp image.

I hope you guys sort out the lens placement issues who knows this might sway me into adding a precon to my system if its worth it.

Oh and Sunblock and shades please... just to be safe

DM

Can someone explain the possibility of getting +400 lumens with a 39,000 lumen light, at the same distance, compared to a 110,000 lumen light with a condensor getting 515 lumens??? Sorry, I just don't understand it. I've given my numbers Supra, at 220mm my 895w 90,000 lumen light was 350 lumens. Getting 400+ with a 400w ushio just seems errored to me.

I don't think anyone has gotten 400+ lumens with the ushio...if you mean Supra, he was using a 40,000 lumen pulse strike bulb... what reflector were you using? setup? and Supra has an 8.5% lcd too don't forget..

NOTE: AV, if you'd like to have the last few messages moved elsewhere let me know, the precondenser thread might be more appropriate, would unclutter your PLOG some...

DAZZ, I was reaching for my 2 cents when I saw your full bill on the table. Nice diagram which btw explains exactly what I have come to grips with.

I'd have to agree with mikyd, this would make for some good info for beginners at his precon thread.