I would say it is not about shaprness but about brightness.
The difusive layer does not difuse the image if it is in contact. I mean it obviously does difuse the light rays but the image looks unmodified because there is not the gap enough to make the image look crap. This is the case on the lcd difusive layer, it is in contact with the lcd. If you increase the gap, then the image will look crap.
Removing the layer, won´t make image sharper in terms of direct view. (does your LCD look crap when you look at it on your computer screen?)
But the light path (lamp arc trhow the lcd to the triplet) is much farther from the difusive layer, this time the effects on the difusiveness of the layer (gap dependent) is pronounced. The light focusing abilities takes importance here so does BRIGHTNESS as well.
The difusive layer does not difuse the image if it is in contact. I mean it obviously does difuse the light rays but the image looks unmodified because there is not the gap enough to make the image look crap. This is the case on the lcd difusive layer, it is in contact with the lcd. If you increase the gap, then the image will look crap.
Removing the layer, won´t make image sharper in terms of direct view. (does your LCD look crap when you look at it on your computer screen?)
But the light path (lamp arc trhow the lcd to the triplet) is much farther from the difusive layer, this time the effects on the difusiveness of the layer (gap dependent) is pronounced. The light focusing abilities takes importance here so does BRIGHTNESS as well.
actually it will make your direct view better also...I was at a store where they were showing the new HP monitors "brightview" technology, which if you read their literature, basically they don't put the anti-glare on the screen at all , and looking at 2 monitors, one with the anti-glare and one without the differnce was really really visible, deeper colors, sharper.... you really need to see it side by side to appreciate the difference
well, depper colors... I don´t know what exactly this term is.
The brightness will increase thats unquestionable. In my opinion the sharpness is comparable to "focus". I mean, if you can see the screendoor effect on the projection, then you can´t make it any "sharper".
On opposite,If you are not able to project the screendor (black area between sub-pixels) assuming idel proection lens (so the difusivenes factor is the only killing factor...) it is the difuse layer what is killing the image because its excesive gap.
I would say you can always see the screendor on direct view to an "antiglare with" LCD. (under a microscope for instance...)
The brightness will increase thats unquestionable. In my opinion the sharpness is comparable to "focus". I mean, if you can see the screendoor effect on the projection, then you can´t make it any "sharper".
On opposite,If you are not able to project the screendor (black area between sub-pixels) assuming idel proection lens (so the difusivenes factor is the only killing factor...) it is the difuse layer what is killing the image because its excesive gap.
I would say you can always see the screendor on direct view to an "antiglare with" LCD. (under a microscope for instance...)
ummm.... well, its hard to describe, but more vibrant colors? richer looking? and yes, brightness will increase definitley, if due to nothing else other than removing a layer...but really, see if there is a store selling the newer "Glare type" (what its called on new laptops) monitors... it really is striking, the difference
pepe303 said:
I think it's quite possible. When light reaches the ag surface it is more or less parallel. After going through the ag it diffuses is 'less parallel' so the polarizer passes less light than it would have passed with the ag removed. Does it make any sense?
Rox,
I agree with what you mean ( i think) but not with what you say. To me the main screen door looking feature is the blue bar. Its quite annoying in that it doesnt blend in as well as the rest. I agree that anyone seeing subpixels has no sharpness issue. They are probably too close. 😀
A diffuser is designed to scatter light through a mild angle not to block it. So by design the main effect will be to send light off angle where you dont want it not to lower the brightness. Imagine a very narrow bell curve that is your light from 1 pixel to your screen. A diffuser will spread that bell curve out by some factor. The majority still hits the screen at the mean so you can still form an image but a larger chunk of the light is diverted through some angle (say up to 20 degrees on the tails). Its still hitting your screen so the total light has barely dropped as in pepe's test. The problem is it is diluting the image. If there is a big face on screen and its all the same color it doesnt matter if a bit came from the wrong spot. Its still skintone. If your image is something complex like a garden for example the washout is far more noticable. It will look like the brighness is cranked up.
I would expect your system to be very good. I'd guess you could afford a bit of diffusion. We are both using the same 150w lamp so i know why you care more about brightness. Still, it makes a finer image undiffused.
I agree with what you mean ( i think) but not with what you say. To me the main screen door looking feature is the blue bar. Its quite annoying in that it doesnt blend in as well as the rest. I agree that anyone seeing subpixels has no sharpness issue. They are probably too close. 😀
A diffuser is designed to scatter light through a mild angle not to block it. So by design the main effect will be to send light off angle where you dont want it not to lower the brightness. Imagine a very narrow bell curve that is your light from 1 pixel to your screen. A diffuser will spread that bell curve out by some factor. The majority still hits the screen at the mean so you can still form an image but a larger chunk of the light is diverted through some angle (say up to 20 degrees on the tails). Its still hitting your screen so the total light has barely dropped as in pepe's test. The problem is it is diluting the image. If there is a big face on screen and its all the same color it doesnt matter if a bit came from the wrong spot. Its still skintone. If your image is something complex like a garden for example the washout is far more noticable. It will look like the brighness is cranked up.
I would expect your system to be very good. I'd guess you could afford a bit of diffusion. We are both using the same 150w lamp so i know why you care more about brightness. Still, it makes a finer image undiffused.
WoW Pepe,
Feel free to use any of my images for your scanning. My images are completly unaltered in everyway.
they were opened in photoshop, and cropped/resized. no color/brightness/contrast adjustments have been made. here are just a few of them, for you to try
The problem, is you make a serious accusation, with no proof at all. Go ahead and tell me my photos have been altered.
Moving on, you can cry about the $20 fee, but I see it as this:
Since youve been moaning and groaning about the fee and such, clearly you desire to be a member on the forums, why would that be, if all the "other" forums are truely better or as good, why would you care about the LL fee, or why would you bother even visiting the LL site. You diss the site, you diss the quality, you diss the members results pics, but then you openly admit that got the anti-glare method from LL. You are contradicting yourself considerably. You say your image is barely any better, through your avermedia tuner, but better through a PC. Most of us at LL use a HTPC, maybe thats why most are getting a better gain than you have proclaimed. why would the 20 success stories or so, Ive read about AG removal lie? What would be their motivation? Do you think its a mass conspiracy just to fool you into pulling the AG off of your LCD? I havnt had the chance to pull the AG off of mine, but others have done it with the same LCD as me, and proclaimed significant differences, just as voovoov (sorry about spelling, pulling name from memory) has indicated in this thread, that he has achieved a better image. Maybe your particiular LCD, has less gain when removing the AG, but you cant dispell the many of people that have proclaimed better success.
Brain has every right to charge for forum membership, LL had paved the way for many concepts being applied to DIY LCD PJs. This anti-glare method is just one of them. Clearly the $20 fee isnt to steep, cause we sure do have alot of activity on the site.
you may say, well the anti-glare removal is "No longer" a secret, which is fine. its been around on our forums for months, and relativiely NEW everywhere else. Nonetheless, we still have a 145 page thread on it full of plenty of technical research on LCD material layers, and we have a LOG going of what monitors work with what stripping methods. (Just in case you dont know, the wet towell method known as ragging, isnt the only method implemented)
Feel free to use any of my images for your scanning. My images are completly unaltered in everyway.
they were opened in photoshop, and cropped/resized. no color/brightness/contrast adjustments have been made. here are just a few of them, for you to try
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The problem, is you make a serious accusation, with no proof at all. Go ahead and tell me my photos have been altered.
Moving on, you can cry about the $20 fee, but I see it as this:
Since youve been moaning and groaning about the fee and such, clearly you desire to be a member on the forums, why would that be, if all the "other" forums are truely better or as good, why would you care about the LL fee, or why would you bother even visiting the LL site. You diss the site, you diss the quality, you diss the members results pics, but then you openly admit that got the anti-glare method from LL. You are contradicting yourself considerably. You say your image is barely any better, through your avermedia tuner, but better through a PC. Most of us at LL use a HTPC, maybe thats why most are getting a better gain than you have proclaimed. why would the 20 success stories or so, Ive read about AG removal lie? What would be their motivation? Do you think its a mass conspiracy just to fool you into pulling the AG off of your LCD? I havnt had the chance to pull the AG off of mine, but others have done it with the same LCD as me, and proclaimed significant differences, just as voovoov (sorry about spelling, pulling name from memory) has indicated in this thread, that he has achieved a better image. Maybe your particiular LCD, has less gain when removing the AG, but you cant dispell the many of people that have proclaimed better success.
Brain has every right to charge for forum membership, LL had paved the way for many concepts being applied to DIY LCD PJs. This anti-glare method is just one of them. Clearly the $20 fee isnt to steep, cause we sure do have alot of activity on the site.
you may say, well the anti-glare removal is "No longer" a secret, which is fine. its been around on our forums for months, and relativiely NEW everywhere else. Nonetheless, we still have a 145 page thread on it full of plenty of technical research on LCD material layers, and we have a LOG going of what monitors work with what stripping methods. (Just in case you dont know, the wet towell method known as ragging, isnt the only method implemented)
when you said the difussed light still goes to the screen... what do you mean? It all depends on the difuse factor and the triplet size... the 20 degrees scatered light example is fine, but this light is not getting the screen because it is not getting the triplet even.
Results in a dimer image.
Results in a dimer image.
Scubasteve2365 said:
I didn't say everybody's photos are "improved", but pointed at least two, and that part of the thread on LL magically disappeared. So there must be something, don't you think so?
Scubasteve2365 said:
It's not me who touches the subject of 20$ fee. This is your psychological projection, you assume, that I think, what you think that I should think 🙂
Sorry, but the "towel method" does not come from LL. It comes from this forum, I found it here. And please don't make this thread off-topic. On LL you would hear "play nice or be banned". But here nobody gets banned for knowing more 🙂
Your images are not tweaked. But judging from the exposure settings, they are quite dim in reality. ISO400, 1s, f2.8, most pictures like that are taken with ISO100, with similar exposure parameters. Instead of tweaking images, you tweaked the projection. You set low brightness and nice contrast, so all the details are visible (no "burnout" of bright parts), but I think it's hardly watchable in reality with these settings. So I guess you have two modes for your projector, an "impressive photo mode", and an "everyday watching mode" 🙂
The trick is you have a good camera, that does not generate much noise at ISO400 and long exposure.
Regards
pepe303 said:
You've got to be kidding me, there you go with your accusations again. Is it impossible that someone can just actually achieve good results.
Is it unheard of that someone at LL get good results, that you now have to make false assumptions with mine. Ive made more than one PJ, bettering them as I go, the images you see above are my most recent, and that were taken at the same settings of which I watch. You dont stop to think about the crap you say, thats why that thread was deleted over there, because you pop off at the mouth without knowing anything, just as you have said with my images above.
Maybe perhaps, I just have a quality LCD, I have tweaked my PJs for over a year, I use an HTPC, and have played immensly with FFDshow, using both the AVIA calibration disc and DVE calibration disc.
You made a false claim, that said everyone with good results have re-touched their images, I give you images that have NOT be retouched, and for you to not feel trumped, you have to come back saying I dim the image, but turning the contrast up, when in reality I have spent numerous hours calibrating, in which I have found the perfect MIX of Gamma and Color Saturation of my LCD, along with my ATI overlay settings, and then lastly in FFDshow.
As for the anti-glare removal method, please show me a thread that dates earlier than SEPT 2005, before you start assuming things originated here. I visit both forums on a regular basis, and I saw it go up on LL first.
OK, you have built a very good projector, and it's not your first attempt, all is fully optimized, everything tweaked to the max, I respect that. And you still need to set ISO400, 1s, f2.8 to take a decent picture? Weird. Perharps you are surprised, that EXIF headers of images are preserved in this forum. Or do you happen to have the very huge screen, like 6 meters wide? That would explain this "substandard" brightness. No doubt Sony makes good cameras, my Canon is very noisy at ISO400 🙂
Regards
Regards
Oh, and just to follow up.
Im not a professional photographer either, before you make a claim saying that is my proffesion
Im an electronics engineer, I know very little of photography. I have no clue what my ISO settings are on my camera, so Im not going to argue with you on that. Nor would I even know what ISO settings do
My camera is a sony cybershot, $199 at walmart about 8 months ago.
I put it on night mode, and I did change the aperature to the lower value.
This is done because of dim corners, the larger the aperature of any optical device (camera/telescope ect), that more EXTREME the angle of light capture can be. The aperature,I believe is what your calling this F number.
On the day time settings of my camera, the corners come out looking really dim, much dimmer than they are in person. No of course as with any DIY PJ, the corners are dimmer, due simply to the distance between the ARC and the corners of the fresnel lenses. This is the same thing that effects the aperature of the camera lens. A smaller aperature cant capture the light from the corners the same as a larger aperature can.
If I were to step way back (around 20 feet), then I could capture the image, with no dimmed corners on the smallest aperature setting. (f4 I believe), and I even have an image for you, that I took many months ago.
That image is a 4:3 source, at 11 1/2 feet diagonal (138"). You can see the PJ up front, and im standing about 20-25 feet back from the screen. I had to go back that far, just to get a correct representation of the corners, because the aperature setting was on a small setting. This was before I learned about aperature setting, after I made that post on LL, someone told what the aperature was, and how to change it. Ever since then, Im able to take pictures with my camera placed on top of the PJ.
Im not a professional photographer either, before you make a claim saying that is my proffesion
Im an electronics engineer, I know very little of photography. I have no clue what my ISO settings are on my camera, so Im not going to argue with you on that. Nor would I even know what ISO settings do
My camera is a sony cybershot, $199 at walmart about 8 months ago.
I put it on night mode, and I did change the aperature to the lower value.
This is done because of dim corners, the larger the aperature of any optical device (camera/telescope ect), that more EXTREME the angle of light capture can be. The aperature,I believe is what your calling this F number.
On the day time settings of my camera, the corners come out looking really dim, much dimmer than they are in person. No of course as with any DIY PJ, the corners are dimmer, due simply to the distance between the ARC and the corners of the fresnel lenses. This is the same thing that effects the aperature of the camera lens. A smaller aperature cant capture the light from the corners the same as a larger aperature can.
If I were to step way back (around 20 feet), then I could capture the image, with no dimmed corners on the smallest aperature setting. (f4 I believe), and I even have an image for you, that I took many months ago.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
That image is a 4:3 source, at 11 1/2 feet diagonal (138"). You can see the PJ up front, and im standing about 20-25 feet back from the screen. I had to go back that far, just to get a correct representation of the corners, because the aperature setting was on a small setting. This was before I learned about aperature setting, after I made that post on LL, someone told what the aperature was, and how to change it. Ever since then, Im able to take pictures with my camera placed on top of the PJ.
pepe303 said:
I do have a very large image, but it is very good in person. Surely it would be brighter if I was projecting smaller, but Im happy with the results, things have been tweaked to the max, and I have made more than 1 PJ, this does give me the advantage over the results a NEWBIE can acheive.
My screen size is 138" diagonal, that is on the pretty large side compared to most screen sizes people go with. I have a very large basement and plenty of room, so I opted for my screen to consume one whole wall.
But still, the image I showed at 20-25 feet back, at a lower aperature setting shows very good brightness as well. And better yet, I will be taking some more images this weekend, Ill let you tell me what settings to set my camera too.
You tell me the ISO, the Aperature, any of that stuff, and I will set it there and take images, of course I would expect to see some of your results at the same settings of course!
EDIT***
What are EXIF headers, and what would it matter if they are preserved, I didnt attach any pics to this forum, they are hosted from LL
I would like the application in which you are scanning my images, I am an adminstrator on a gaming website, in which users have to submit images as proof of winning sometimes, and Id like something that would let me know if any images could be edited/fake in order to cheat.
Please give me this application, It would be quite valuable, or at least give me the name of the application
scuba never said his projector was superbright. In fact i belive his is somewhere 200-250 lumens range. I believe the lumenlab average projector is somewhere 200 lumens (personal thought)
the lumens output is a limiting factor on diyporjectors in my opinion. But it all depends on your requeriments. It could be that it is too bright for what you need also...
the lumens output is a limiting factor on diyporjectors in my opinion. But it all depends on your requeriments. It could be that it is too bright for what you need also...
scuba: EXIF is an information, included in a jpeg image. There are usually exposure settings, name of the camera, rsolution, date and time, and so on. If these are only links to LL, so LL forum preserves this information, doesn't matter.
I don't have any special application to create a histogram, I use Gimp, which is a general image processing application, it's free and you can download it from the net.
We don't argue here whose projector is better, but I don't agree if you try to deny obvious facts. Given the screen size, and the parameters of your picture, I can tell you, that your projector is about 4 times dimmer than mine. Now, we can try to find where the mistake is, as I don't really expect it's really 4 times dimmer, as it would be completely unwatchable, as my screen is barely watchable due to poor brightness.
Below is an example, that I posted yesterday to LL.
Photo parameters: ISO100, f=3.2, t=1s (so the exposure is less than 1/4 of yours, you have ISO400 and f=2.8), screen size: 280cm wide, 350cm diagonal (so almost exactly like yours)
Rox: so how would you explain, that Guy Grotke measured his projector at 52lm? As I remember he uses a 250W bulb. What trick they invented in LL, that they get 200-250lm, just replacing 250W with 400W? I think most DIY projectors ar about 100lm, or below that. But this is my guess. I started a thread on LL about brightness measurement, you could help, because you have a luxmeter.
Regards
I don't have any special application to create a histogram, I use Gimp, which is a general image processing application, it's free and you can download it from the net.
We don't argue here whose projector is better, but I don't agree if you try to deny obvious facts. Given the screen size, and the parameters of your picture, I can tell you, that your projector is about 4 times dimmer than mine. Now, we can try to find where the mistake is, as I don't really expect it's really 4 times dimmer, as it would be completely unwatchable, as my screen is barely watchable due to poor brightness.
Below is an example, that I posted yesterday to LL.
Photo parameters: ISO100, f=3.2, t=1s (so the exposure is less than 1/4 of yours, you have ISO400 and f=2.8), screen size: 280cm wide, 350cm diagonal (so almost exactly like yours)
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Rox: so how would you explain, that Guy Grotke measured his projector at 52lm? As I remember he uses a 250W bulb. What trick they invented in LL, that they get 200-250lm, just replacing 250W with 400W? I think most DIY projectors ar about 100lm, or below that. But this is my guess. I started a thread on LL about brightness measurement, you could help, because you have a luxmeter.
Regards
i would like to listen where your 4 times brighter math come from.
GG's projector is not a lumenlab design. His is 250W and 550 field fresnell, and a process lense (500mm focal? 45mm lens aperture? all this by memory) this makes his 52 ansi lumens measurement not comparable with a lumenlab design.
The 200 lumens average is based on real measuremts at real lumenlabs.
How many lumens do you think there are on yours? just curiosity... 😀
GG's projector is not a lumenlab design. His is 250W and 550 field fresnell, and a process lense (500mm focal? 45mm lens aperture? all this by memory) this makes his 52 ansi lumens measurement not comparable with a lumenlab design.
The 200 lumens average is based on real measuremts at real lumenlabs.
How many lumens do you think there are on yours? just curiosity... 😀
well 200 lumens for 15" screen , a 400w and some ikea reflector + large projection lens and antiglare removal seems concevable.
When comparing two pj you must take care of the size of lcd, focal of fresnel, diameter of the lens etc....
Based on the ask impression 1280 I got rated for 450lumens I think the previous 200 lumen are realistic. the ask has a 50000lumen bulb with 9 mm arc and also a very good precondensor. Replacing the original bubl by a 400w mh with 30000lumens will decrease the lumen output from 450 to 270 lumens. the fact that the 400w mh bulb arc is bigger will certainly lead to a further loose of lumen if it's not compensate by an increased in diameter of the projection lens. If not you might finish indeed around 100 lumen.
I just try to replace the initial bulb by a mh 400w without changing the lens diameter and i got 135 lumens.
When comparing two pj you must take care of the size of lcd, focal of fresnel, diameter of the lens etc....
Based on the ask impression 1280 I got rated for 450lumens I think the previous 200 lumen are realistic. the ask has a 50000lumen bulb with 9 mm arc and also a very good precondensor. Replacing the original bubl by a 400w mh with 30000lumens will decrease the lumen output from 450 to 270 lumens. the fact that the 400w mh bulb arc is bigger will certainly lead to a further loose of lumen if it's not compensate by an increased in diameter of the projection lens. If not you might finish indeed around 100 lumen.
I just try to replace the initial bulb by a mh 400w without changing the lens diameter and i got 135 lumens.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.