If you could have your 30" IPS LCD converted to AR glossy, how much would you pay?

M

MetaGenie

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
246
As is becoming more and more well-known, IPS LCDs with an anti-glare coating all have a problem with noise/sparkle to some degree, some worse than others.

It is possible to buy glossy 24" LCDs. It is not possible to buy a glossy 30" LCD; no manufacturer makes one. The only options left are:
1. Go with a PVA, which has a much weaker sparkle effect, but other downsides.
2. Convert a 30" IPS to glossy (which nobody has done yet).

The anti-glare removal method is problematic. Nobody has reported back as to the long-term effects of leaving the polarizer exposed, however there are reports that the residual glue attracts dust and is hard to clean, and that removing this glue is risky and can reveal defects in the surface. And nobody so far as been willing to risk trying the AG removal process on a 30" LCD.

I have been researching a method that involves gluing an anti-reflective film to the surface of the LCD (the anti-glare coating surface) using epoxy that matches the index of refraction of the AG coating. I've identified an epoxy that should be perfect for the job. But buying anti-reflective film that has no built-in adhesive (the built-in adhesive has the wrong index of refraction) is the most difficult part.

I got a quote of $14400 (yes over 14 thousand, that's not a typo) for 150 sheets of adhesive-free anti-reflective film. That's far more than I can afford and I doubt I could find anywhere near enough clients to break even on that investment. However, what if I could bargain that down to a much smaller quantity?

Assuming I get this process to work on my own Dell 3007WFP-HC, how many of you would buy a sheet of AR film from me to try it on your own LCD? (keeping in mind that the price will be more than $100 per sheet)

These sheets would be 1000mm x 500mm with a 980mm x 480mm coating area. This could be cut down to a size of about 650mm x 410mm for laminating a 30" LCD.
 
There are a few companies that sells screen-protectors for laptops that also makes them glossy. Don't know how well they work but some take measurements to fit your screen. Maybe something like that would work and be cheaper.
 
brumwald said:
There are a few companies that sells screen-protectors for laptops that also makes them glossy. Don't know how well they work but some take measurements to fit your screen. Maybe something like that would work and be cheaper.
Click to expand...

I've already tried that. Nobody sells screen-protectors that are large enough for a 30" LCD.
 
If you bargained the quantity down the price would go up, but if it stayed the same that is almost $100 per sheet. That is pretty expensive and then you must apply it yourself perfectly or your screen will look jacked up. I'm not sure to many people will go in on that for those reasons.
 
The epoxy takes 3 days to dry. I expect that if it starts to look like it won't harden well, it could be removed.
 
The NEC EA231WMi has tolerable grain/sparkle. This is coming from someone who's used a glossy FHD2400 for almost 5 years and thought he's never EVER be able to handle non-glossy. I returned an LP2475w because of the matte grain. This is much better. The color accuracy of the e-IPS makes up for the grain. I mean things on the FHD2400 just look garish.

As for glossy, get the new Apple 27" LED IPS. Do you really need 30"?
 
ElektroDragon said:
The NEC EA231WMi has tolerable grain/sparkle. This is coming from someone who's used a glossy FHD2400 for almost 5 years and thought he's never EVER be able to handle non-glossy. I returned an LP2475w because of the matte grain. This is much better. The color accuracy of the e-IPS makes up for the grain. I mean things on the FHD2400 just look garish.
Click to expand...
Do you know if the NEC LCD3090WQXi-BK is similar?

That doesn't really help me, though, because I already have the 3007WFP-HC. I'd have to sell it, and then pay a lot more on top of that to get the NEC. And then I'd still have some grain/sparkle (I want none) and I'd have a frame of input lag (whereas with my 3007 I have zero).

ElektroDragon said:
As for glossy, get the new Apple 27" LED IPS. Do you really need 30"?
Click to expand...

My video card doesn't do DisplayPort, so I'd either have to buy a new video card or go for the Atlona DP400 ($140). And I'd hate to lose 160 lines of resolution (2560x1440 vs 2560x1600). Viewing DSLR photos full-screen already uses only 2400x1600; with the 27" it would use only 2160x1440. Although it would be nice not to have letterbox bars when watching TV / movies (but I'm planning to make some physical black bars to put on my screen, anyway).

And I don't think the Apple 27" will be truly glossy. I looked at an Apple 24" iMac in a store a while back (they didn't have the 27" iMac, just the 24", but they should be the same design), and it was grain free when looking perpendicular at it, but I could see sparkle when looking at it from a 45 degree angle.

I think the Apple 27" has a matte, anti-glare coated LCD panel, with a glass front panel glued onto it with optically bonded adhesive. In short, I think they're doing the same thing (but on an industrial scale) that I'm trying to do with my 3007WFP-HC.

Of course that's very little evidence, taken from a quick look at a monitor on display in a store. But I can't think of any other reason I'd see sparkle off-axis.

If even Apple can't get an LCD panel maker to make them a glossy panel, and even they have to use optical bonding to get it to be glossy, then surely I can do this myself, on the LCD I already have. Moreover, the Apple has no anti-reflective coating, whereas with my plan it will be AR.
 
Last edited:
I have a feeling that gluing things yourself onto a screen won't work the way you speculate. And having a smooth glossy layer introduces reflections, even if there is an AR layer under it (since the topmost surface is doing the reflecting, not the underlying layers). I seriously doubt it will work better than the AR removal method, all around - but that's mere speculation, and I will watch the result of this with interest.

Some of the newest high end plasmas from this year have some of the first glossy coatings I've seen that are not too bad with reflections even compared to matte AR screens, but it is a complex optical coating process that has been refined over many years and is clearly expensive, and not glued on.
 
sethk said:
I have a feeling that gluing things yourself onto a screen won't work the way you speculate. And having a smooth glossy layer introduces reflections, even if there is an AR layer under it (since the topmost surface is doing the reflecting, not the underlying layers). I seriously doubt it will work better than the AR removal method, all around - but that's mere speculation, and I will watch the result of this with interest.

Some of the newest high end plasmas from this year have some of the first glossy coatings I've seen that are not too bad with reflections even compared to matte AR screens, but it is a complex optical coating process that has been refined over many years and is clearly expensive, and not glued on.
Click to expand...
Please don't confuse AR with AG — the matte layer on LCDs is an anti-glare coating, which diffuses light (due to a microscopically bumpy surface); reflections are just as strong, but they're blurred. An anti-reflective coating is glossy and decreases the amount of light reflected, and tints the remaining reflected light, but the reflections are just as sharp as they would be otherwise.

sethk, the reason this glue idea will work is that optically clear adhesive can fill in the microscopic valleys in the anti-glare coating. If the adhesive has an index of refraction that matches the material comprising the anti-glare coating, then the light will pass straight through without being diffused. But it's very important that the index of refraction matches. That's why the built-in adhesive of HEA2000K is no good for this; it's about 1.47, whereas the epoxy is 1.515 which is exactly what I need. That's why the best way to do this would be by buying HEA2000K with no built-in adhesive, but the only way to buy that is in bulk. Which is why I started this thread.
 
I do understand the difference between ag and ar - I should have been more careful in the usage of the terms. My question is why is this glue method better than ag removal (in terms of performance rather than practicality)?
 
sethk said:
My question is why is this glue method better than ag removal (in terms of performance rather than practicality)?
Click to expand...

With AG removal, the polarizer becomes exposed and vulnerable to damage, which has been called "graining". Some people have described that washing away the residual glue can exacerbate this.

If I did go with removal, I'd want to cover the bare polarizer right away with AR film, both to protect it and to reduce reflection. But I'm afraid that doing this could itself put stress on the polarizer, and grain it.

In theory, the best performance could be achieved by having nothing between the polarizer and AR film (except for the AR film's adhesive). But probably the only professional way to do this would be to remove not just the AG coating, but the polarizer with it, and replace it with a new polarizer with AR film pre-applied. But this would be monstrously expensive even if it were possible to buy the parts and/or service.

Gluing AR film on top of the AG coating should result in virtually the same performance (given that it would be done as I've previously discussed), without the risk of graining the polarizer, because it would not for a moment be unprotected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top