Rox said:
It's pretty good for our purpose, to confirm the picture was processed in a simple manner that changes brightness, contrast and colour saturation. There are no "positive errors", if you see in the histogram that picture was tweaked, then it was tweaked, almost 100% sure. However, there might be "negative errors", a picture may be professionally tweaked, and you will not see it in the histogram, but I doubt people anywhere in DIY forums reach that level of self-promoting 🙂
Regards
pepe: I should have stated before(this is for other interested people now) that the best thing to do is to apply the tape test in your projector, that way you can see by direct comparison whether there will be a visible difference in the projection, its what I would do if I was able to get to my lcd without a big hassle! I will say that people with PS1 lcds(I have a verge PS1 screen) may want to do the tape test as mine had very heavy anti-glare coating on it (in comparison to the 2 lcds I had with AG on both sides)
actually he recognizes that the difusivity decreases miky, he says he can see trhow the lcd much better than before, but where he does not see a significative improvement is in the projected image, he says it is not signifially brighter.
any clue about what are we forgeting?
any clue about what are we forgeting?
pepe,
i do not understand. I've seen the post closed at ll but i didn't see the result of your picture analysis there?? did they suppress it.
Concerning the effect of agbeside the different quality possible, I have an explanation:
I think the AG give more light to people who want more light🙂
I explain, i think the increase i see is related to my settings. As i have a 7" lcd and as it is more difficult to illuminate than a 15" i oriented my setup to a more powerful light efficiency. Doing what?
lowering the condenser fresnel focal , adding a condensor and using a large projection lens.
However i use a 400mm focal projection lens with a 380mm field fresnel.
Then all this setting increase the arc image by a big factor (in fact 11cm arc image and only 10cm diameter projection lens).
Before removing AG i've seen that using a 12,5cm diameter projection lens gave me better lumen output.
With AG my arc image was diffuse and larger while now without ag this image is pretty sharp and smaller.
So i get more light because it's more focuse in the projection lens.
So I'm not sure that people using a small diameter projection lens will see a brightness improvement.
On the contrary, people having a very small image arc and a big projection lens should not see a difference too.
I'm curious of your exact setting since i try to estimate lumen output from all the components used in a diy pj.
So please give me info on your setting (focal and diameter of precondensor, kind of reflector, focal of frensel ,size and focal of your projection lens, bulb arc size and lumen output) just to try to figure out how many lumens you could have.
On my side tell me exactly the settings i need to take a quantifiable picture with your method and try to compare the lumen output between your picture and mine.
Just curious if we can get something significant concerning the estimation of lumen output between differents settings.
i do not understand. I've seen the post closed at ll but i didn't see the result of your picture analysis there?? did they suppress it.
Concerning the effect of agbeside the different quality possible, I have an explanation:
I think the AG give more light to people who want more light🙂
I explain, i think the increase i see is related to my settings. As i have a 7" lcd and as it is more difficult to illuminate than a 15" i oriented my setup to a more powerful light efficiency. Doing what?
lowering the condenser fresnel focal , adding a condensor and using a large projection lens.
However i use a 400mm focal projection lens with a 380mm field fresnel.
Then all this setting increase the arc image by a big factor (in fact 11cm arc image and only 10cm diameter projection lens).
Before removing AG i've seen that using a 12,5cm diameter projection lens gave me better lumen output.
With AG my arc image was diffuse and larger while now without ag this image is pretty sharp and smaller.
So i get more light because it's more focuse in the projection lens.
So I'm not sure that people using a small diameter projection lens will see a brightness improvement.
On the contrary, people having a very small image arc and a big projection lens should not see a difference too.
I'm curious of your exact setting since i try to estimate lumen output from all the components used in a diy pj.
So please give me info on your setting (focal and diameter of precondensor, kind of reflector, focal of frensel ,size and focal of your projection lens, bulb arc size and lumen output) just to try to figure out how many lumens you could have.
On my side tell me exactly the settings i need to take a quantifiable picture with your method and try to compare the lumen output between your picture and mine.
Just curious if we can get something significant concerning the estimation of lumen output between differents settings.
Rox said:
well, my point was that I have seen 4 different LCDs in the last 6 weeks paying special attention to the anti-glare.... it varys more than you might think..... most of the successful panels I've seen over there have been "newer" (ie, past 2002) .... it may be that some change in tech since then has made the difference in ag stripping.... I did the tape test on my older panels(ag on BOTH polarizers) and while it was less diffused(more clear) with the tape on both sides it was not nearly the difference as when I put the tape on the ps1, that was both a brighter and clearer picture.. I did do a very rough lux test on one and according to the numbers it was at least 8% transmissive already(before ag stripping) so I honestly think you can't do much better than that(and yes, I know your argument about the transmissivity not changing, I just don't neccessarily agree 😉 I'm in the middle of redoing my case to hold the 17" but I will do some test of that panel at some time, thougfh I had to take the front polar off entirely so it won't really be valid 😉 .anyway I really think its all in the age of the panel(the tech at the time)... the newer lcds seem to have much more AG on them(of course that varies too!)
"On the contrary, people having a very small image arc and a big projection lens should not see a difference too."
well is there anybody with too small arc image? 😀 how do you do? 😀
I understand your idea renan, but i don´t think there is this case on someone's diy 😀. I would like to be the first case though 😀
well is there anybody with too small arc image? 😀 how do you do? 😀
I understand your idea renan, but i don´t think there is this case on someone's diy 😀. I would like to be the first case though 😀
"I know your argument about the transmissivity not changing, I just don't neccessarily agree "
mmm, if we place a luxmeter somewhere at X distance from the lcd and there is difusive film there, (assume paralell input light from sun for instance at other side of LCD) then your luxmeter meassurement won´t tell you the LCD trasmitance since there is light not entering the luxmeter sensor because of the difusiveness.
Longer the X distance lesser measurement would show the luxmeter, so less trasmitance aparently on the LCD.
If there was no difussive layer, ideally, all the meassuremts would be equal. All would meassure LCD trasmitancy, it would not change if X was larger. (I mean LCD trasmitancy comparing the lux value with LCD there and no LCD there... of course).
I think the luxmeter in contact with the LCD meassurement (X=0) is close enough to the real trasmitance on the LCD (there is or not a difussive layer).
mmm, if we place a luxmeter somewhere at X distance from the lcd and there is difusive film there, (assume paralell input light from sun for instance at other side of LCD) then your luxmeter meassurement won´t tell you the LCD trasmitance since there is light not entering the luxmeter sensor because of the difusiveness.
Longer the X distance lesser measurement would show the luxmeter, so less trasmitance aparently on the LCD.
If there was no difussive layer, ideally, all the meassuremts would be equal. All would meassure LCD trasmitancy, it would not change if X was larger. (I mean LCD trasmitancy comparing the lux value with LCD there and no LCD there... of course).
I think the luxmeter in contact with the LCD meassurement (X=0) is close enough to the real trasmitance on the LCD (there is or not a difussive layer).
Rox said:
I think you lost me there rox..... when you say LCD , do you meant the glass substrate(actual LCD) and the 2 polarizers only? I would agree that there is no way to change that, barring better polarizers... darn, I wonder if I threw away the AG yesterday, I could have measured its transmissiveness,m but I suppose the fact of it not being on the lcd would change its transmissiveness?
well some people do not use precondensor and had 24mm arc bulb with a classic setup of 220/330 mm focal fresnel. means 36mm arc image in theory and may be 90 in true life but with a 100mm diameter projection lens does this unprobable guy would see a difference without AG.
mikey;
mmm, you are right, removing "material" from the path must improve trasmitance. Didn´t see it from that point of view (dam i must have some kind of antiglare on my eyes 😀)
renan;
I would like " dam i gave too small arc" to be my worst issue 😀. But ok, I cought your input as well, you are right 😀.
rox;
it is late you must go to bed soon 😀
mmm, you are right, removing "material" from the path must improve trasmitance. Didn´t see it from that point of view (dam i must have some kind of antiglare on my eyes 😀)
renan;
I would like " dam i gave too small arc" to be my worst issue 😀. But ok, I cought your input as well, you are right 😀.
rox;
it is late you must go to bed soon 😀
I am one of those in LL who removed the AG. The contrast for my projector is improved a lot and so is the brightness. I am very happy now.
voovoov said:
So why don't you show us some results, as I did? It's not a "secret" anymore, that you can soak LCD with water and a/g will go off. You say it improved "a lot", did you do any measurements, like Renan did? Or comparative pictures, as I did?
Regards
I got the a/g off my 15.4" proview tonight on the front side. the lcd appears to have a/g on the other side as well and I am ragging it now and will attempt to remove in the morning. as far as the *danger* or *risk* involved, i think that largely depends on your patience and , most importantly, the panel itself. the frontside a/g came right off after 7 hrs. no residue. when I get the other side off and get the pj back together after turkey day I will post my impressions of the results. my initial results seemed on the dim side to me with this panel. and color was ok, but not the greatest, vivid-wise, and the contrast was not so good, could be b/c of the dimmness, i don't know.
rox, yes it must improve trasmittence to some extent just getting rid of the extra layers
pepe, i find it hard to believe that all these people claiming better color, sharpness, and contrast are all lieing and doctoring pics. but i do agree about ll to some extent. I mean why help them get paid for your innovation and hard work by not posting this stuff elsewhere like here. but would also agree with rox, for better or not, there is alot more active posting going on there.
rox, yes it must improve trasmittence to some extent just getting rid of the extra layers
pepe, i find it hard to believe that all these people claiming better color, sharpness, and contrast are all lieing and doctoring pics. but i do agree about ll to some extent. I mean why help them get paid for your innovation and hard work by not posting this stuff elsewhere like here. but would also agree with rox, for better or not, there is alot more active posting going on there.
i tryed to remove it too but it dosn't wont to come off where do i start to peel right at the corner of the lcd or right where the pixles are ? it a lilliput monitor
ahh ok i have just removed it ... well hope i didn't kill my lcd .. when i removed the plastic where the backlight is it has left some kind of marks on the lcd ? well i ll let you all know what is the differance today when i have time to put everything back .....
just to be clear, the AG is not on the side of the backlight but on the other side.
if you have some trace of glue you can remove it softly with water.
if you have some trace of glue you can remove it softly with water.
I suggest being very careful. It's really easy to scratch the polarizer, and if you smear the glue, it's hard to clean it.
renan: I will post the details of my projector that you asked about, just today I'm too tired, I have to open the box again and measure all distances in the light engine.
Regards
renan: I will post the details of my projector that you asked about, just today I'm too tired, I have to open the box again and measure all distances in the light engine.
Regards
i removed the two plastics that wore on the front and back of the lcd .... what a differance ......
I makes no sense that this cant work.
For anyone that has opened an LCD monitor all you have to do is take one of the loose films in the back and drape it over a photograph. Is a picture just as clear with a diffuser in front? No. Its impossible.
For someone doing the stripping you can prove it to yourself by cutting the diffuer off when you have pulled half. Look at the image. 1/2 is bound to look more diffused/ less sharp. There is no way around it.
This is not about brightness. Its about a crisp image.
For anyone that has opened an LCD monitor all you have to do is take one of the loose films in the back and drape it over a photograph. Is a picture just as clear with a diffuser in front? No. Its impossible.
For someone doing the stripping you can prove it to yourself by cutting the diffuer off when you have pulled half. Look at the image. 1/2 is bound to look more diffused/ less sharp. There is no way around it.
This is not about brightness. Its about a crisp image.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.