Retrofit a 30" LCD, changing it from matte to glossy?

M

MetaGenie

Limp Gawd
Joined
Nov 6, 2009
Messages
246
I'm wondering if it's possible and feasible to remove the matte covering from a 30" LCD, and replace it with a glass panel (with anti-reflective coating).

There are so few choices in the realm of 2560-pixel-wide LCDs. Every existing choice has at least two compromises.

My requirements are:
1) At least 2560 pixels across (2560x1440, 2560x1600)
2) No speckle / sparkle / glitter / powder / shimmer / micro-luster / fine rainbow dust / crystalline effect as is seen in IPS panels with a matte anti-glare covering.
3) Input lag no more than 17 ms

And my desires are:
4) Monitor stand that can pivot between landscape and portrait orientation
5) High gamut (highly saturated colors are a kind of "compensation" for my protanomaly color deficiency). In fact what I'd really love is 4 primaries, RGCB, with a customizable color matrix transform function, but this is a pipe dream.
6) Glossy glass front cover with anti-reflective coating
7) High contrast ratio, with deep dark blacks
8) True refresh rate that can go from 48 Hz to at least 72 Hz, for judder-free film and PAL video playback
9) Black frame insertion or its equivalent
10) High dynamic range (i.e., the ability to go at least as bright as 3000 cd/m^2 or so, with a contrast ratio of at least 1:10000 or so)

(I realize there are no currently available monitors that satisfy #1 along with #8-10, but I've included these desires anyway for completeness.)

I actually had to order a Dell 3007WFP-HC before I realized that the speckle effect exists, and while I love the 3007WFP-HC otherwise, I hate the speckle. The worst thing about it is that my two eyes see different speckle patterns, resulting in an effect that's worse than normal luma/chroma noise. I don't understand why most people don't seem to have a problem with it. I notice the effect on pretty much everything, but it's especially bad and eyestrain-inducing when reading text on a white background.

Apparently it's the matte covering which causing this speckle, which makes sense. What I don't understand is why VA and TN panels don't exhibit speckle with a matte covering — why don't they? Virtually all the 30" LCDs are matte, and I think the only PVA one is the Samsung 305T, which has 2 frames of input lag — I'm pretty sure this would be unacceptable to me. The darker blacks would be nice, though.

I think the only 30" LCD with pivoting is the NEC LCD3090WQXi-BK, but this is a matte IPS and therefore will have the speckle effect.

It seems that the 27" Apple iMac is the only currently available choice that meets my most important requirements. But this would be nearly twice as expensive as the 3007WFP-HC (since I'd also have to buy a new video card to get DisplayPort output).

So, it occurred to me that it should, in theory, be fairly simple to replace the matte front plate with a plate of glossy anti-reflective-coated glass. Of course this would void the warranty, but maybe it'd be worth it. It should get rid of the speckle effect, and should result in more pleasing black uniformity.

How feasible is this idea? Has anyone else thought of it, or tried it, with any kind of LCD?

(Also — the front cover is only there to protect the LCD panel itself, right? In theory it could be removed completely, with the downside of making it harder or impossible to clean the LCD — but in the meantime it'd look better than either a matte or a glossy LCD?)

Are there any solutions to this dilemma that I'm missing, or haven't thought of?
 
Last edited:
Interesting, ambitious and expensive sounding idea. If you can build one that meets all your specs, sell it for less than $2000 and still make a profit, you'll be a very rich man. I'll buy one! ;)
 
MetaGenie said:
I'm wondering if it's possible and feasible to remove the matte covering from a 30" LCD, and replace it with a glass panel (with anti-reflective coating).
Click to expand...
It can be done, if you're crazy enough, but do you really want to risk it? It's not a simple process. You'd have to open the monitor and take apart the panel, and the matte covering is not a front plate. It's a film that's glued to the front polarizer, so you'd have to soak the top of the panel with wet paper towels for a few hours to let the glue loosen, then gently peel away the anti-glare film, making sure not to damage the front polarizer. Then you'll need a glass panel of the appropriate size to cover the panel.

Examples: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283

MetaGenie said:
What I don't understand is why VA and TN panels don't exhibit speckle with a matte covering — why don't they?
Click to expand...
They do. It's just not as strong because the coating is not as aggressive. I don't know why LG insists on using such an aggressive anti-glare coating. For a while, they used a milder anti-glare coating with the first-generation H-IPS panels, but they brought back the grainy coating with newer panels. Also, I've seen S-PVA with a grainy coating, but I think that was only on one particular 24" panel.
 
Last edited:
Im in the same boat. If it works for you. No matter warranty, im going to do the same thing for my U2410
 
Thanks for the information, ToastyX. I'm pretty sure that's more than I'm willing to risk.

I was also thinking about using a polishing / "scratch-removal" compound with refractive index equal to the anti-glare layer, but I'd need to know exactly what material the anti-glare layer is made of to have the proper refractive index; and I expect that the result would be much more reflective than a piece of glass with anti-reflective coating. But it appears that one person in the Lumenlab thread used "PEEK polish" instead of stripping the anti-glare layer.

rosh, good luck with your U2410 modification. Are you going to document it on the Lumenlab thread? You'd be only the second person to post about a 24" 1920x1200 anti-glare removal, at least in that thread.
 
Last edited:
I suggest you do a few trial runs with junk 17" and 19" LCD monitors to see if what you propose is in any way feasible. Disassemble them, too, and see how the antiglare coating interacts with the rest of the unit.

It was possible (but usually not worth it), with a lot of work, to remove anti-glare from CRT monitors because it was attached to glass, and you could use chemicals and elbow grease to remove it from the glass. You don't have that luxury with LCDs. Nearly anything you do will end up damaging pixels.
 
I am struggling with the same thing. I have a Dell 2007WFP, and can't stand the sparkle effect the anti glare coating produces no longer. Lately I have been using the Dell more, and I seem to have more problems with my eyes irritating.

I began searching for alternatives, but it seems every IPS has the same sparkle effect. Also, the only readily available IPS panels availabe these are E-IPS that are of much lesser quality than the S-IPS panels we used to have. The term IPS is no longer giving the security of having a quality screen.

Now what? I used have IPS as a 'must have' factor, but now am willing to buy PVA or MVA as long as they don't have the sparkly / glittering coating. Hell even TN maybe if they have gone up in quality. The new led Apple display would be an option because of the clear coating, but it can't be easily connected to a PC (yet).

I am now looking into Eizo PVA monitors, but I really need to see them in a shop before I can judge them en purchase one.

Also removing the coating from my Dell would be great! Maybe this would solve my problem without have to buy a new screen.

ToastyX said:
It can be done, if you're crazy enough, but do you really want to risk it? It's not a simple process. You'd have to open the monitor and take apart the panel, and the matte covering is not a front plate. It's a film that's glued to the front polarizer, so you'd have to soak the top of the panel with wet paper towels for a few hours to let the glue loosen, then gently peel away the anti-glare film, making sure not to damage the front polarizer. Then you'll need a glass panel of the appropriate size to cover the panel.

Examples: http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8283
Click to expand...

Reading trough that thread almost gives me enough confidence I can do this myself. If i screw up the screen, so be it, I don't want to use it for long anyway with the coating it has now.
 
Last edited:
I have few questions,

1. According to the pics i have seen after removing AG the panel is like a mirror. Im wondering it make the monitor useless due to too much reflections.

2. Is it possible to clean the panel without damaging it after removing AG?
 
It just grows on you... I'm used to it by now...

I'd much rather have matte than glossy though, glossy is the worst.

Now you can't get a laptop without getting one with a glossy screen, wtf...
 
If matte anti-glare coating is something applied onto the surface of the polarizer, then what is done on a glossy panel such as the one in the 27" iMac? Is there any anti-reflective coating on the polarizer? Without one, wouldn't the polarizer be more reflective than it should be (more reflective than a good CRT such as the GDM-F500 or GDM-FW900), regardless of whatever AR coating is put on both sides of the glass plate that's placed over the polarizer?

Also, does anyone know why S-IPS panels tend to have much more aggressive anti-glare coatings than TN and PVA panels? It doesn't seem to make any sense. Do they want to cripple their products?

ToastyX said:
They do. It's just not as strong because the coating is not as aggressive. I don't know why LG insists on using such an aggressive anti-glare coating. For a while, they used a milder anti-glare coating with the first-generation H-IPS panels, but they brought back the grainy coating with newer panels. Also, I've seen S-PVA with a grainy coating, but I think that was only on one particular 24" panel.
Click to expand...
Isn't it possible that most anti-glare coatings are of approximately equal strength, and that the degree of sparkle depends on the distance (depth) between the pixel layer to the AG coating? Although more distance would result in more blur.
 
Last edited:
Can someone please point me to a cheap LCD that has strong sparkle? I need one to experiment with. Ideally it should have similar characteristics to the 3007WFP-HC (S-IPS, aggressive anti-glare coating) but be cheap (which probably means small).
 
MetaGenie said:
Can someone please point me to a cheap LCD that has strong sparkle? I need one to experiment with. Ideally it should have similar characteristics to the 3007WFP-HC (S-IPS, aggressive anti-glare coating) but be cheap (which probably means small).
Click to expand...

your best bet might be to actually purchase a broken 3007wfp-hc or lp3065 on ebay or perhaps just make a request from dell or hp...im sure they get plenty of dead units

$50 might get you the ACTUAL thing to practice on...can't get better than that ;)
 
Browsing through Lumenlab I found this:
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7882&st=1140#

And... wow. I just tried sticking some glossy super-transparent packaging tape on top of part of my 3007WFP-HC's screen, and it got rid of the sparkle completely while making the display a tiny bit brighter. Of course I can't use this tape to cover the whole screen, because it would have seams (the tape is only 2 inches wide). But if I can procure a single rectangular piece of glossy tape, and apply it without creating bubbles, I'd be home free!

Apparently using "PEEK Polish" or "Mothers Mag & Aluminum Polish" may acheive a similar effect, but it would not be reversible, and I would need to try it out on a throwaway LCD first.

isp said:
your best bet might be to actually purchase a broken 3007wfp-hc or lp3065 on ebay or perhaps just make a request from dell or hp...im sure they get plenty of dead units

$50 might get you the ACTUAL thing to practice on...can't get better than that ;)
Click to expand...
That's an interesting suggestion, but... a dead unit wouldn't be so good to experiment on. :-\
If I removed the anti-glare using the towel-soak method, I wouldn't then be able to verify that I didn't break the LCD or grain the polarizer. And if I used the polish method, I wouldn't be able to power it on and see if I really did succeed in getting rid of the sparkle.
 
Last edited:
oh right, well it will give you practice with the soaking and peeling anyway :D
 
The vertical height of the 3007WFP's display area is 400.8 mm (15.78 inches). The widest tape I could find anywhere was 8 inches, but that was masking tape. The widest clear tape I've found is 6 inches wide, and can be found here. Tape factories make tape rolls many feet wide and then cut them up for sale; perhaps the vendor I linked may have some ideas on how to find an uncut roll, or at least one that's 16 inches wide. That would be very hard to handle and apply correctly, and you would definitely want a defunct 3007 to practice that sort of thing on.
 
Yes, even if I could special-order tape in that size it'd be hellishly difficult to apply it without creating bubbles. Heck, I can't even apply the 2-inch-wide tape all the way across without it bubbling, at least not without a second person to hold the tape. But seeing it work on a little patch of my screen gave me hope! The Lumenlab page that I linked shows pictures of LCDs where part of them has been polished and another part has been taped. The two regions look exactly the same. The photos are not detailed enough to show whether sparkle has been removed, but if they look alike in one way, I'd imagine they're probably alike in the other way.

I think polishing would be at least an order of magnitude easier than taping, and much less risky than removal. I also get the impression that a polished AG is less reflective than a removed AG, while probably still virtually eliminating sparkle (though nobody has said outright that it does, and they're not doing it for that purpose). Not to mention that I'm afraid that removing the AG would leave the polarizer extremely vulnerable to scratches and stains.

But experimenting on a dead 3007WFP-HC or LG3065 is looking like an attractive idea. It would at least tell me if the AG layer is thick enough to be polished. And after finishing with the polishing, I could experiment with removal.
 
Last edited:
How does the 3007WFP compare to the 3007WFP-HC in terms of anti-glare sparkle? More, less, or about the same? I may have to experiment on a 3007WFP.
 
Last edited:
One thing about taping that only occurred to me later: most tapes yellow with age, don't they? And subjected to the brightness of an LCD, wouldn't tape yellow even faster?
 
I got another idea from reading Lumenlab threads:
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7882&view=findpost&p=96576
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7882&view=findpost&p=96921
http://www.lumenlab.com/forums/index.php?s=&showtopic=7882&view=findpost&p=98525
But I couldn't find any more follow-up on this idea. It seems like it was just abandoned, maybe because those people are building projectors and don't have to worry about keeping the polarizer protected (so removal was good enough).

So now I've been researching low-viscosity epoxies that may be able to flatten over the panel and harden that way. I've found a promising one, "water clear optically transparent epoxy":
http://www.epoxies.com/potting.htm
http://www.epoxies.com/tech/20-3302R.pdf

evilsofa said:
One thing about taping that only occurred to me later: most tapes yellow with age, don't they? And subjected to the brightness of an LCD, wouldn't tape yellow even faster?
Click to expand...
I've given up on the idea of taping, because it would be so hard to do without making any bubbles. As for the 20-3302 epoxy:
"This high purity grade polymer system is formulated with proprietary ultraviolet protectors to minimize yellowing of the cured epoxy."

Dust may be a problem, but probably less so than with tape. Not sure if it may warrant working in a clean room or not. Also I'm not sure what the best way to dam the edges would be (I'd prefer not to take the LCD apart). It would depend on how good the mixed epoxy is at seeping through cracks.
 
Last edited:
On the subject of bubbles, thats something that I rarely get right. Which is why I was amazed when I saw the Invisible Shield for the iPhone. Specifically not the shield itself but how it was applied. Spray on, wipe off and let it dry. Have a look at the videos, it makes things much clearer.

On that subject, if you can find some similar liquid and film, it might just work!
 
I wonder if simply applying plastic wrap (the kind used to protect food) would be all that's needed. If you could apply it with gentle pressure, it might just work and be completely reversible. Something to try, at least.

Altenatively, perhaps apply a layer of wax to the surface followed by the plastic wrap. The wax would fill in the microscopic dents in the antiglare surface that causes the light refraction, while the plastic wrap would protect the wax layer and give you a surface that you can clean off any dust that collects. (swiffer duster or feather duster).
 
In fact, one could try the wax + wrap idea on a piece of frosted glass. Much less expensive than trying it on a working LCD, and a sure proof of concept.
 
I tried plastic wrap with some vaseline under it, and it reduced the grain dramatically but nowhere near as well as the packaging tape. There was still visible grain, probably because the refractive index of the AG coating was not as closely matched. Also, it was even harder to avoid bubbles than it was with the tape, and the plastic wrap was full of flaws.
Not to mention that I'd prefer a method that didn't involve something wet and potentially solvent to be permanently between the plastic and the AG coating. It could weaken the bond between the AG coating and the polarizer.

As for wax as an intermediary... I thought all waxes were merely translucent, not transparent. But Googling brings up "gel wax", something I'm not familiar with. Is this what you meant?

I'm back to thinking that tape might be a good option. Bubbling might be easy enough to avoid if the tape were applied directly from the roll, only peeling and applying it a bit at a time. The difficulty is of course getting the 400 mm or 16 inch width.
This looks good: http://solutions.3m.com/wps/portal/...E3E02LECIE20KHO6_nid=LLWBTWDCDDbeG7W0C8BLTFgl
However I cannot find any place that sells this in 16 inch width, just 12 inch and 24 inch in huge, expensive bulk. Haven't tried contacting any places yet.
 
Last edited:
jubbie said:
On the subject of bubbles, thats something that I rarely get right. Which is why I was amazed when I saw the Invisible Shield for the iPhone. Specifically not the shield itself but how it was applied. Spray on, wipe off and let it dry. Have a look at the videos, it makes things much clearer.

On that subject, if you can find some similar liquid and film, it might just work!
Click to expand...

Googling on that, I found them here:

http://www.zagg.com/hotgadgets/index.php

I think this is interesting because even if it doesn't change the anti-glare (and I don't know if it will or won't), it would protect the surface of the monitor for whatever experiments you try on it.
 
The invisibleSHIELD looks promising. In the iPhone invisible shield video, it appears to be fully glossy.

I wonder if they can deliver a 641mm by 401mm shield. I also wonder if their spray-on liquid will match the refractive index of the AG coating as well as the Scotch Packaging Tape does (probably not), and if the squeegee will be able to remove bubbles from such a large screen.

The Scotch Packaging Tape matches the refractive index extremely well, but I've not been able to find out what its index actually is. It may be necessary to do some experimentation to find the optimum index, and then mix or try to obtain a liquid matching that index.
 
Last edited:
I was kind of in the same boat as you I think, and I concluded that unless you remove the antiglare coat its never going to be as clear and sharp as it could be :( ...but yeah, you can polish (lol pun) a turd all you want to minimize the "sparkle effect" but when next to a real glossy without the antiglare it will inevitably pale in comparison...

I have the LP3065 and while nice for some stuff it just isn't what I expected. It will probably never will live up to those expectations either. I sold it pretty much as soon as my eyes weren't going to get used to it and while it still commanded a high price. My advice would be to get out now before the new wave of panels (the ones we hoped were a reality) actually do come out and these become the ones everyone avoids (kind of like 3007WFP is atm)...

going to use the new 27" iMac until better options become available....I'll just use that little computer behind it for a file server or something in the meantime...
 
Last edited:
isp said:
I was kind of in the same boat as you I think, and I concluded that unless you remove the antiglare coat its never going to be as clear and sharp as it could be :( ...but yeah, you can polish (lol pun) a turd all you want to minimize the "sparkle effect" but when next to a real glossy without the antiglare it will inevitably pale in comparison...
Click to expand...
That is part of why I decided not to polish. The other reason is that reading through Lumenlab, I saw that some people had no success at polishing, probably due to variations in the types of anti-glare coatings. There's also the fact that it's not reversible.

I'm very pleased with the way my 3007WFP-HC's sparkle disappears under Scotch Packaging Tape, so I'm pursuing that and similar options.

I have the LP3065 and while nice for some stuff it just isn't what I expected. It will probably never will live up to those expectations either. I sold it pretty much as soon as my eyes weren't going to get used to it and while it still commanded a high price. My advice would be to get out now before the new wave of panels (the ones we hoped were a reality) actually do come out and these become the ones everyone avoids (kind of like 3007WFP is atm)...
Click to expand...
There's no sign whatsoever that the market is going to move away from these awful anti-glare coatings. I prefer not to wait. Heck, maybe even 2560x1600 OLEDs, when they come out, will have these eye-assaulting anti-glare coatings, so I figure I might as well work on defeating it instead of waiting for something that may not happen.

going to use the new 27" iMac until better options become available....I'll just use that little computer behind it for a file server or something in the meantime...
Click to expand...
It'd be extremely nice if you would share your impressions of the 27" iMac in this thread. I would particularly like to know if you see any sparkle at all, and how much (compared to your memory of the LP3065 you sold). If you would do an input lag test as well, and state whether you're using native DisplayPort or a DVI->DisplayPort converter, it'd be awesome.

I'm shying away from the 27" iMac option because I don't want to give up 160 vertical pixels, and the 27" iMac probably has a smaller gamut than the 3007WFP-HC due to using white LED lighting instead of RGB LEDs. Not to mention that it would cost me about $900 more than the 3007WFP-HC, because I'd also need to buy a DisplayPort video card. (On the other hand, I would appreciate having 30-bit color.)
 
Last edited:
caught this thread while just browsing around, and while having not read any of the linked content, it did spark some interest, and I'm wondering if anyone has tried anything like saran wrap the fact that its not sticky like tape means it can be moved if bubbles form, removed completely (and quickly to boot) if it shows little/no improvement. and to top it all off, its cheap and readily available.

The stuff i was just messing with was glad press and seal it is textured, but a slight rub (very little pressure it didn't even begin to push on my pixels) smooths it out and makes it transparent (nearest i can tell any way, i don't plan on doing this to my monitor, because i prefer the matte finish... glossy=glare and i cant stand chemical coatings to reduce it. ) and it sticks to nearly anything, standard roll of this stuff is 11.80 in (according to the box) and is wide enough to cover my 2005fpw bezel to bezel with no seams... might be worth looking into
 
well, after rereading the whole thread this time and seeing that people have tried plastic wraps, i decided to try the press and seal stuff, it dose look promising, but im afraid it would take more pressure than im willing to put on the screen to make it smooth out, bubbles are not a problem with it, but as you are working it, it tends to stretch, which causes wrinkles if you could work it evenly with a tad more pressure, it might be a contender, but i dont know who would be willing to do that and risk bruising the panel's pixels... if you have a 10$ junker laying around that still works, maybe.. but i wouldn't touch anything you want to keep..
 
ZAGG will not let me custom-order an invisible shield of a particular size, but that doesn't mean the basic idea is invalidated.

This is what would be needed:
  1. A sturdy optically clear film of the proper size to cover the LCD. Probably should be at least a few millimeters wider and taller so as not to create a visible and distracting seam (the extra width and height would fit under the bezel's inside lip).
  2. A liquid of the proper index of refraction to be sprayed onto the film before application, to fill in the gaps in the anti-glare coating and to maintain a seal.
  3. A squeegee that will be able to remove all the bubbles.
Some of the 3M PDFs on optically clear adhesives list refractive indexes of 1.47 - 1.475. I think this is for the acrylic adhesive itself, and not the optically clear film to which the adhesive is attached, but I'm not 100% sure. If it is for the adhesive, assuming Scotch Packaging Tape has similar properties, a liquid with an index of about 1.47 - 1.475 should be good.

The film+liquid+squeegee solution has the big advantage of being easily removable, and (hopefully) easily de-bubbled. The sturdiness of the film would help in removing bubbles, something that plastic wraps cannot do.

I'd still be concerned about whether the liquid would be absorbed by the AG coating and weaken its bond with the polarizer underneath, but maybe it wouldn't be enough liquid to cause a problem.
 
Doubt you should see a problem with the liquid as there should only be enough for the film to stick, which is where the squeegee comes in.

ZAGG is one of the original makers of such products and I am sure I would have seen other "imitations" floating round the web somewhere. Not sure how good it is but at least thats something to work from. What boggles me is the liquid they use. Plastic film and squeegee are probably standard but the liquid that hold it together without air pockets, now thats what I found amazing.
 
The liquid is not that amazing. All you have to do is create a vacuum between the film and the screen, and air pressure on the outside keeps them together. If you have two microscopically smooth surfaces and you manage to press them together without air between, they will stick together for the same reason (and it can be very hard to pry them apart).

On a small scale, the anti-glare coating has mountains and valleys; this is what diffuses the light and breaks up reflections. The liquid is going to be filling all the valleys, effectively smoothing out the surface. However, whatever material filling these valleys has to match the AG coating in refractive index, otherwise the light will still be diffused; any time light passes from a material of one index to a material of a different index, it bends (the greater the difference, the more it bends).
 
Here's an animated GIF demonstrating how bad the anti-glare grain is on my 3007WFP-HC, and how good the Scotch Packaging Tape is at removing it:

Dell_3007WFP-HC_anti-glare_and_tape.gif
(click to see contrast adjusted to enhance the effect)

The first frame is the original image, darkened to match what comes next.
The second frame is taken with the Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro lens, at f/32 to remove all aliasing; an area of 128x128 LCD pixels were carefully cropped (2726x2726 in the photograph, unrotated 0.1 degrees) and resized to 4096x4096, then down to 128x128, both using Bilinear resampling.
The third frame is the same as the second but taken with the tape covering that area of the LCD. The area to be resized was slightly different (2728x2728) due to refractive effects changing the size of the image. Notice you can see some air bubbles on the left edge.

My initial attempts to do this had moiré, but the f/32 aperture along with the upsample-before-downsample got rid of it much more than I anticipated possible.

The anti-glare image noise is worse than this animated GIF demonstrates, because it has a finer resolution than the pixels themselves, and changes depending on viewing angle (which is why it's often called "sparkle" rather than grain). But this photography and image-processing technique would be very effective at objectively comparing the anti-glare grain of different LCDs.
 
Last edited:
The difference is night and day comparing it like that! :eek:

Another thing that comes to mind are the anti-fog liquids or bars etc. They never seem to work well enough for me but it does seem like something that could help fill in the gaps. Just throwing out random ideas :p
 
jubbie, you might be right that there's something special about ZAGG's liquid that makes it easy to squeegee out the air bubbles... but I hope not, because they won't provide any info on their liquid! I think (and hope) it's the rigidity of the screen cover that allows it to work so well. That would allow some flexibility with liquids.

The first thing I need to do is figure out what index of refraction the liquid needs to maximally reduce the anti-glare grain! I'm thinking I'll start with water, and add increments of sugar to it (which raises its index). I'll measure the index of each water/sugar solution using the hollow prism and laser pointer technique. I'll take each water/sugar sample and use it to hold a piece of plastic on the LCD, and take a picture of white using the above photographic technique.

Then there will be a whole set of photos that will go from noisy to clear and back to noisy... the clearest one will correspond to the best index of refraction!

For the final liquid (to use with the actual huge piece of plastic that will cover the LCD) I can mix something with something else (probably not sugar and water) to get this same index of refraction.


As for anti-fog liquid... one kind actually did work for me, back before I lost my prescription swimming mask to a huge wave. I had to use a thick gooey kind, and smooth it carefully with my fingers — so it wouldn't be thinned to nonexistence, but also wouldn't make the mask too hard to see through. Perhaps a new kind of swimming mask / goggles will be made using lotus leaf properties so that it never even needs an anti-fog liquid.
 
Last edited:
I have two possible solutions.

1) My HP 3065 has the panel recessed approximately 4-5mm (0.2") behind the bezel. I believe your Dell should be similar.
It should be relatively easy to get a piece of glass of the correct dimensions. The issue will be in keeping the glass on the screen. Maybe thin weatherstripping (I believe it's called) will be sufficient to keep it in place. Maybe a strip of tape on the corners?

2) Automotive window tint. This can be had in clear (non-tinted) flavors as well.
The issue is that the tint guy usually applies a liberal coat of soapy water to the car window before applying the tint. Water + electronics are usually a pretty bad combination.
I believe you'd want to strip down the panel, have the tint guy do his thing on it, and then leave the panel on a radiator or in a large oven at ~50C (120F) for a few days. Of course, it could still break...
Maybe a non-conductive liquid can be used?

MetaGenie said:
The film+liquid+squeegee solution has the big advantage of being easily removable, and (hopefully) easily de-bubbled.
Click to expand...
MetaGenie said:
The liquid is not that amazing. All you have to do is create a vacuum between the film and the screen, and air pressure on the outside keeps them together.
Click to expand...
It is not the liquid or a vacuum keeping the film on the monitor. The films have a sticky backing, and the liquid is used to keep the film from sticking while applying the film. The water will slowly evaporate over a few weeks allowing the glue to stick.

MetaGenie said:
I'd still be concerned about whether the liquid would be absorbed by the AG coating and weaken its bond with the polarizer underneath, but maybe it wouldn't be enough liquid to cause a problem.
Click to expand...
It will not. The edge of the LCD panel will happily absorb it though...

MetaGenie said:
the 27" iMac probably has a smaller gamut than the 3007WFP-HC due to using white LED lighting instead of RGB LEDs.
Click to expand...
3007WFP-HC does not use LED backlighting:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/14/dell-enhances-30-incher-they-call-it-3007wfp-hc-we-call-it-lov/
27" iMac should have the higher gamut.
 
Last edited:
Yonzie, thanks for that information, especially about the liquid evaporating to allow the glue to stick. That is vital information to know, because it means the glue would need to match the desired index of refraction, not necessarily the liquid (though that'd be nice too).

Would the result of that be just as hard to peel off as the anti-glare coating itself is to remove? It sounds like it, since you called it "glue" instead of "adhesive"... so this wouldn't be very reversible. And since I'd have to strip down the panel to avoid the electronics getting wet, maybe I'd be better off just removing the anti-glare coating and putting the non-tinted window tint over that... and then I wouldn't have to worry about matching any indexes of refraction.

Argh, this is getting complicated and risky.

Yonzie said:
MetaGenie said:
the 27" iMac probably has a smaller gamut than the 3007WFP-HC due to using white LED lighting instead of RGB LEDs.
Click to expand...
3007WFP-HC does not use LED backlighting:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/11/14/dell-enhances-30-incher-they-call-it-3007wfp-hc-we-call-it-lov/
27" iMac should have the higher gamut.
Click to expand...
You misunderstood what I said. I said that because the 27" iMac has white LED backlighting instead of RGB LED backlighting, it is likely to have a smaller gamut than the 3007WFP-HC's high-gamut CCFL backlighting.
 
I guess the stickiness depends on the product used. I don't have experience taking it off, but I would expect it to be about on par with the packing tape you used. (I was ignorant of the difference between glue and adhesive, I have realized my mistake and taken note :) )

I'm unsure about all this talk about refractive index. I guess it might theoretically make a difference, but I believe that it will be so minor (especially compared to the sparkle) that you shouldn't notice it. At worst, you need to tilt or turn the monitor a little to compensate for the deflection (if any).
 
Water soluble glue + plastic film? Seems like there might be a very cheap solution to your problem. Dilute the glue (or not) and it dries clear. I've used them, craft glue, childrens glue etc. to "protect" certain things. It creates a clear film when dried and doesnt leave a mess when I do decide to pull it off. Just dissolve adhesion with more water or simply peel it off.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top