![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Retrofit a 30" LCD, changing it from matte to glossy?
- Thread starter MetaGenie
- Start date
This thread has been very interesting. The grainy matte texture of the u2410 is truly driving me nuts.
Hope someone can answer this:
Does anybody know if the 27" Dell 2709w has this same problem? How can I tell? (I don't see a mention of it being the same type matte, but can't figure out for sure.) thanks!
Hope someone can answer this:
Does anybody know if the 27" Dell 2709w has this same problem? How can I tell? (I don't see a mention of it being the same type matte, but can't figure out for sure.) thanks!
I finally found something very, very promising, in fact it looks like just the ticket: http://www.gdoptilabs.com/products/film_laminations.htm
And yes, this was a link from the Lumenlab forum.
I will call them tomorrow!
And yes, this was a link from the Lumenlab forum.
I will call them tomorrow!
I may have to wait until after the 13th to contact that company. In the meantime I've started on an experiment I'd been meaning to do, to try various liquids as intermediaries between the 3007WFP-HC's anti-glare coating and a piece of glossy clear plastic, and narrow down which index of refraction maximally reduces the sparkle.
My hypothesis was that the index of refraction of the AG coating is approximately 1.47, because Scotch Packaging Tape is a virtually perfect match, and probably uses an acrylic adhesive, and in some white papers for optically clear adhesives the index of the acrylic adhesive is specified as 1.47 - 1.475. I couldn't get the specification for Scotch Packaging Tape itself (a 3M rep told me they haven't measured it).
I set up the hollow prism & laser experiment to measure the refractive index of liquids, using a 532 nm green laser.
I started with water and measured an index of 1.334. This showed that the experiment was properly set up and reasonably accurate. Then I mixed a solution of sugar water as thick as I could make it, and measured this to be 1.40. My target concentration was 75% sugar, but I was not able to achieve this; some of the sugar stayed settled at the bottom. I had planned to fine-tune the concentration of sugar to achieve the desired index, but this turned out to be impossible (at least with the kind of sugar I had at home). Then I tried canola oil (because in a list of indexes vegetable oil was close to my target) and measured an index of 1.476.
A dab of water under a piece of plastic, stuck onto the monitor, does a very poor job of reducing the anti-glare sparkle. The sugar water did a better job, but still not very good. The vegetable oil, on the other hand, does a very good job of reducing sparkle; it's almost as good as the Scotch Packaging Tape. I can still see some residual sparkle though, so I haven't quite pinpointed the anti-glare coating's index of refraction yet.
My hypothesis was that the index of refraction of the AG coating is approximately 1.47, because Scotch Packaging Tape is a virtually perfect match, and probably uses an acrylic adhesive, and in some white papers for optically clear adhesives the index of the acrylic adhesive is specified as 1.47 - 1.475. I couldn't get the specification for Scotch Packaging Tape itself (a 3M rep told me they haven't measured it).
I set up the hollow prism & laser experiment to measure the refractive index of liquids, using a 532 nm green laser.
I started with water and measured an index of 1.334. This showed that the experiment was properly set up and reasonably accurate. Then I mixed a solution of sugar water as thick as I could make it, and measured this to be 1.40. My target concentration was 75% sugar, but I was not able to achieve this; some of the sugar stayed settled at the bottom. I had planned to fine-tune the concentration of sugar to achieve the desired index, but this turned out to be impossible (at least with the kind of sugar I had at home). Then I tried canola oil (because in a list of indexes vegetable oil was close to my target) and measured an index of 1.476.
A dab of water under a piece of plastic, stuck onto the monitor, does a very poor job of reducing the anti-glare sparkle. The sugar water did a better job, but still not very good. The vegetable oil, on the other hand, does a very good job of reducing sparkle; it's almost as good as the Scotch Packaging Tape. I can still see some residual sparkle though, so I haven't quite pinpointed the anti-glare coating's index of refraction yet.
Last edited:
I see on that list that glycerin is 1.473. This stood out to me because just last night while browsing fark.com's Video links page, I saw this video of a glass bottle being disappeared in a glass of glycerin. However, I am unaware of whether glycerin would be safe to use on the surface of the monitor.
That's a neat trick! It'd probably work best with Pyrex glass (1.474). Too bad the person who made that video didn't use twice as much glycerin... then there would be a bottle cap floating in apparent emptiness.
I don't have any glycerin, but I'm thinking of trying some other oils. The oils would probably mix to achieve intermediate indexes. (A honey-water mix would apparently work too, but that'd be a sticky mess, probably much worse than oil.)
Last edited:
Have you ever heard of a product called the Invisible Shield? It ships with a spray and application tool that allows you to apply it without the annoying bubbles. Although applying it in a steamy room helps the process even more. Don't ask me why but it seems to be the case.
What you could do is call up Zagg, the Invisibleshield people, and see if they can custom make you a piece for your display. then ask them to give you LOTS of that spray so that you can apply it without bubbles. Not sure this would work, but it's worth a try. I use it to protect my PSP screen. And I know it works well for smaller screens like ipods, etc., but never tried to put one on a 30 incher.
Thanks, already tried that. They gave me a definite NO. They said they're planning to do invisibleshields for laptops, but haven't released them yet (and that'd be no good for me; still way too small).
An small invisibleshield piece of plastic would be useful for doing the index of refraction tests, though. Do you know if they provide spares when you order one? I'd like to get some for my phone and digital cameras, and if it provides spares it'd be perfect for experimentation on the monitor.
Skimmed most of the thread and did not see this mentioned. Might seem like an oddity, but I used this stuff on my GTI's roof when I had to park outside in the snow for college. It applied with a little soapy water and a silicon squeege and there were NO bubbles (and that was a varied curved surface too).
Information
Looking on ebay they sell it in sizes you could cut down to make work, there is also a cheap sample size here
Worth a look...
Information
Looking on ebay they sell it in sizes you could cut down to make work, there is also a cheap sample size here
Worth a look...
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Thanks for the information, rufio, I was wondering about 3M products like that but found it very hard to get them in the size I need. Unfortunately that ebay sample is too small — I'd need about 25.5" by 16". And the Scotchgard probably doesn't quite have the best properties for an LCD, like including an anti-reflective coating (which OBL apparently does use).
Last edited:
There are auctions for larger sizes, I just thought you might want to test it first. When it was on my car, (yeah I know it's not a monitor) it looked just like the clear coat, it did not add any additional shine or glare fwiw. If I can find any of the extra I had I'll throw it on my 3007WFP (non HC) and see what it does (though I am perfectly happy with my efi es-1000 calibrated screen).
MoreGooder
n00b
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2009
- Messages
- 50
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
I tried olive oil (measured to be 1.466) and it was worse than the canola oil (and a mixture of the two was no better either). However, I've been measuring the indexes at about 15°C. The surface of my monitor is about 40°C, and that may be lowering the refractive index of the oil by as much as 0.01 or so. So the target index may still be somewhere around 1.47 - 1.475.
Can anyone think of a way I could heat a small liquid-filled hollow prism to 40°C (100°F) while it's sitting on top of graph paper with laser light passing through it?
Do you know if this stuff would peel off easily without residue (or with easy to clean residue)?
Can anyone think of a way I could heat a small liquid-filled hollow prism to 40°C (100°F) while it's sitting on top of graph paper with laser light passing through it?
That's a very good point.
Do you know if this stuff would peel off easily without residue (or with easy to clean residue)?
Last edited:
I guess it would depend on the liquid you choose to use, but when I applied it with about three drops of dawn in a spray bottle of water it had no residue. I was way more worried about taking off paint from my car when I removed it than I would be about taking it off of my monitor though. When I applied it there was no wax on the roof (the instructions mentioned it was better that way) and when I removed it it just slowly peeled off.
I just checked the garage though, and unfortunately I do not have any extra length of the stuff, just the nice orange squeegee that came with it.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/30"...72010008r19125
Well that should be big enough... but it's $260! Better experiment with a small sample and see if it works before you commit hundreds of dollars on a large amount of the material.
As far as the invisible shield stuff goes, they don't give you spares but they give you a lifetime warranty, so if it gets messed up somehow, you can just ship it back to Zagg and they should send you a replacement.
Well that should be big enough... but it's $260! Better experiment with a small sample and see if it works before you commit hundreds of dollars on a large amount of the material.
As far as the invisible shield stuff goes, they don't give you spares but they give you a lifetime warranty, so if it gets messed up somehow, you can just ship it back to Zagg and they should send you a replacement.
As an eBay Associate, HardForum may earn from qualifying purchases.
Optical Bonding Laboratories kindly provided me with two samples of Tigold HEA2000K anti-reflective film. This film has an acrylic adhesive. Sadly it is not a good enough match for me; I can see residual sparkle under it.
I tried cedar wood oil on the LCD, and it achieves a visually perfect match. I cannot see the sparkle at all under this oil; it's just as good as Scotch Packaging Tape in this regard. Cedar wood oil, when warmed to the temperature of the panel (42°C), has an index of refraction of 1.502 ± 0.005. Scotch Packaging Tape uses a pressure-sensitive hot melt rubber resin adhesive, and now I know that it must have an index close to 1.50.
I've done photometric tests using my DSLR and macro lens, and these show that the Scotch Packaging Tape reduces the grain noise by 65% and the cedar wood oil reduces the grain noise by 62%. The HEA2000K reduces the grain noise by only 38%. It's very counterintuitive that a 65% reduction in this noise is enough to render it invisible to the eye, while a mere 38% reduction would leave it noticeable, but I've done the calculation in different ways and keep getting the essentially the same result. My photometric tests also showed that when displaying a large area of #808080 solid gray on my 3007WFP-HC, the even and odd pixel columns systematically differ in intensity by about 2.0%.
Unfortunately Scotchgard Paint Protection Film has an acrylic adhesive, so it would most likely be no better a match than the HEA2000K. Both of the other optically clear adhesives I looked into before I found OBL also use acrylic adhesives, so they're right out.
The HEA2000K is much better than Scotch Packaging Tape in that it is anti-reflective and much more scratch resistant, and also brightens the LCD more. But the most important thing to me is getting rid of all the sparkle. So I need to find something that uses a rubber resin adhesive (or something else with an index very close to 1.50), and is available in 16-inch or higher widths.
I tried cedar wood oil on the LCD, and it achieves a visually perfect match.
I cannot see the sparkle at all under this oil; it's just as good as Scotch Packaging Tape in this regard. Cedar wood oil, when warmed to the temperature of the panel (42°C), has an index of refraction of 1.502 ± 0.005. Scotch Packaging Tape uses a pressure-sensitive hot melt rubber resin adhesive, and now I know that it must have an index close to 1.50.I've done photometric tests using my DSLR and macro lens, and these show that the Scotch Packaging Tape reduces the grain noise by 65% and the cedar wood oil reduces the grain noise by 62%. The HEA2000K reduces the grain noise by only 38%. It's very counterintuitive that a 65% reduction in this noise is enough to render it invisible to the eye, while a mere 38% reduction would leave it noticeable, but I've done the calculation in different ways and keep getting the essentially the same result. My photometric tests also showed that when displaying a large area of #808080 solid gray on my 3007WFP-HC, the even and odd pixel columns systematically differ in intensity by about 2.0%.
Unfortunately Scotchgard Paint Protection Film has an acrylic adhesive, so it would most likely be no better a match than the HEA2000K. Both of the other optically clear adhesives I looked into before I found OBL also use acrylic adhesives, so they're right out.
The HEA2000K is much better than Scotch Packaging Tape in that it is anti-reflective and much more scratch resistant, and also brightens the LCD more. But the most important thing to me is getting rid of all the sparkle. So I need to find something that uses a rubber resin adhesive (or something else with an index very close to 1.50), and is available in 16-inch or higher widths.
Last edited:
Water itself has an index of refraction of 1.33, far from my target of 1.50... but if it evaporated to leave behind an adhesive, then that might work. But the adhesive it left behind would need to have an index of refraction very close to 1.50. The annoying thing would be I'd have to wait until it dried completely until I could see whether the adhesive did a good job of eliminating the sparkle!
Also, I am not sure if you have looked into it, but http://www.protectcovers.com/
The excellent index of refraction match of Scotch Packaging Tape was not a coincidence, after all. A better match is possible.
Here are all the photometric grain noise measurements I've done so far:
bare anti-glare coating: 5.88%
HEA2000K-clear: 3.64%
Scotch Packaging Tape: 2.03%
cedar wood oil, covered: 2.25%
wintergreen oil, covered: 2.17%
wintergreen oil / cedar wood oil mix, covered: 1.85%
(Since I don't have any good quality pieces of clear plastic, I doubled up Scotch Packaging Tape to create a cover piece for the oil tests. This is slightly foggy, twice as foggy as one layer of the tape — so the oils actually would perform even better with high-quality clear plastic on top.)
As you can see, a wintergreen oil / cedar wood oil mix achieves an even better optical bond with the 3007WFP-HC anti-glare coating than Scotch Packaging Tape's adhesive. This oil mixture should have an index of refraction very close to 1.515. This is now my target index of refraction for an adhesive, but anything from 1.50 to 1.53 will be plenty good enough.
Here are all the photometric grain noise measurements I've done so far:
bare anti-glare coating: 5.88%
HEA2000K-clear: 3.64%
Scotch Packaging Tape: 2.03%
cedar wood oil, covered: 2.25%
wintergreen oil, covered: 2.17%
wintergreen oil / cedar wood oil mix, covered: 1.85%
(Since I don't have any good quality pieces of clear plastic, I doubled up Scotch Packaging Tape to create a cover piece for the oil tests. This is slightly foggy, twice as foggy as one layer of the tape — so the oils actually would perform even better with high-quality clear plastic on top.)
As you can see, a wintergreen oil / cedar wood oil mix achieves an even better optical bond with the 3007WFP-HC anti-glare coating than Scotch Packaging Tape's adhesive. This oil mixture should have an index of refraction very close to 1.515. This is now my target index of refraction for an adhesive, but anything from 1.50 to 1.53 will be plenty good enough.
As would I.
The only anti-reflective adhesive coating I could find was HEA2000K, which has the wrong index of refraction. It reduces sparkle, but not enough to make it invisible.
Index can be precisely matched using oils, but I doubt it would be possible to use oil as a long-term coating.
I looked into low-viscosity epoxies, but none of them have the index of refraction that I want. However, more research might turn up one that does, or a way of mixing them to achieve a desired index.
Sorry for digging up an old thread yet again, but if anyone knows something more about this I would really like to know.
The AG coating on my u2711 is annoying and if I could tone it down just a bit that'd be awesome.
I found these protective films which come in sizes large enough for the screen, but I can't find any info on what adhesive they use, and as such have no idea on how well the refraction indexes would match. I'll probably mail them with some questions and/or order a sample from them.
edit: forgot the link: http://www.photodon.com/c/MXA-2029.html
Has anyone found any permanent solution to lessen the AG coating on all these dell screens without actually removing it?
Thanks
The AG coating on my u2711 is annoying and if I could tone it down just a bit that'd be awesome.
I found these protective films which come in sizes large enough for the screen, but I can't find any info on what adhesive they use, and as such have no idea on how well the refraction indexes would match. I'll probably mail them with some questions and/or order a sample from them.
edit: forgot the link: http://www.photodon.com/c/MXA-2029.html
Has anyone found any permanent solution to lessen the AG coating on all these dell screens without actually removing it?
Thanks
Nice find, looks promising. Silcone resin adhesives apparently have a range of refractive indexes, but some are pretty close. Maybe they formulated this one to be close to 1.515.
I've ordered a sample and I will do quantitative testing (on how much it reduces grain noise) once I receive it, and report my findings here.
Well, I got my samples from Photodon. 4 days is pretty quick for free shipping! (The sample pack was $5.00.)
So, I tried the "MXA Protective Film", which is the glossy version. It has front and back protective films you must remove first. But the adhesive is quite weak (which makes the film easily removable). It's so weak that the first time I tried to put it on my monitor, it fell right off and picked up some dust. The second time I managed to get it on, and after a few trials squeezed out the air bubbles.
I am disappointed. I can see right away that its silcon resin adhesive is no better a match for AG coating's index of refraction than HEA2000K's acrylic adhesive, and is probably a worse match; it reduces AG grain a little but not enough to render it invisible or even enough to stop it from being a constant intrusion against the enjoyment of smooth images. (Neither are even close to Scotch Packaging Tape in how well they match the index of refraction.) Also it darkens the monitor's output a little bit, giving it a slight brown tint. My guess is that the silicon resin adhesive's index of refraction is about 1.545.
I was really hopeful about this one... oh well, another one bites the dust. I'm not really excited about doing a quantitative noise test (since I'm pretty certain it'll be only a 30% reduction in grain or worse), and it would be hard to do since I got scattered dust on the sample's adhesive; the dust stuck between the film and monitor is quite visible and would interfere with noise measurements (unless perhaps I removed the outliers from the standard deviation calculation). Maybe I'll try cleaning it.
It has an anti-reflective coating that seems pretty similar to HEA2000K (I am comparing against my memory; maybe later I'll stick a HEA2000K sample side by side with the MXA and see for sure); its reflections are dark and blue-tinted. Like HEA2000K it's not as anti-reflective as a CRT like the Sony GDM-FW900, but it's much much better than not having an AR coating. The MXA film must be pressed to a surface (i.e., the monitor) before it takes on these anti-reflective characteristics; I'm guessing this is because when it's not stuck onto something, its rear surface is glossy reflective.
Basically the only thing that would make me consider buying this for my Dell 3007WFP-HC is that it can be removed easily, and does reduce AG grain a little; it would at least give some mild symptomatic relief until I find a better solution. It would be expensive though, probably about $70.
I haven't tried the MXH, MXS or MXT yet. They might be useful for making a glossy laptop matte, but not really what I was excited about.
EDIT: I just had an idea! Photodon's MXA film might be perfect for use with a separate adhesive, like HXTAL NYT-1 (permanent) or immersion oil (easily removable but not sure how long it'd last, and not sure what long-term effects it'd have on the monitor), to match the index of refraction of the AG coating. The MXA appears to not have a rough surface on the adhesive side, so that is very promising...
TL;DR: I'm disappointed that Photodon's glossy film doesn't do any better at reducing AG grain than what I've already tried, and probably does worse. It's easily removable and anti-reflective coated, though, which at least makes it worth considering. EDIT: It might also work well with a separate adhesive; this warrants investigation.
So, I tried the "MXA Protective Film", which is the glossy version. It has front and back protective films you must remove first. But the adhesive is quite weak (which makes the film easily removable). It's so weak that the first time I tried to put it on my monitor, it fell right off and picked up some dust. The second time I managed to get it on, and after a few trials squeezed out the air bubbles.
I am disappointed. I can see right away that its silcon resin adhesive is no better a match for AG coating's index of refraction than HEA2000K's acrylic adhesive, and is probably a worse match; it reduces AG grain a little but not enough to render it invisible or even enough to stop it from being a constant intrusion against the enjoyment of smooth images. (Neither are even close to Scotch Packaging Tape in how well they match the index of refraction.) Also it darkens the monitor's output a little bit, giving it a slight brown tint. My guess is that the silicon resin adhesive's index of refraction is about 1.545.
I was really hopeful about this one... oh well, another one bites the dust. I'm not really excited about doing a quantitative noise test (since I'm pretty certain it'll be only a 30% reduction in grain or worse), and it would be hard to do since I got scattered dust on the sample's adhesive; the dust stuck between the film and monitor is quite visible and would interfere with noise measurements (unless perhaps I removed the outliers from the standard deviation calculation). Maybe I'll try cleaning it.
It has an anti-reflective coating that seems pretty similar to HEA2000K (I am comparing against my memory; maybe later I'll stick a HEA2000K sample side by side with the MXA and see for sure); its reflections are dark and blue-tinted. Like HEA2000K it's not as anti-reflective as a CRT like the Sony GDM-FW900, but it's much much better than not having an AR coating. The MXA film must be pressed to a surface (i.e., the monitor) before it takes on these anti-reflective characteristics; I'm guessing this is because when it's not stuck onto something, its rear surface is glossy reflective.
Basically the only thing that would make me consider buying this for my Dell 3007WFP-HC is that it can be removed easily, and does reduce AG grain a little; it would at least give some mild symptomatic relief until I find a better solution. It would be expensive though, probably about $70.
I haven't tried the MXH, MXS or MXT yet. They might be useful for making a glossy laptop matte, but not really what I was excited about.
EDIT: I just had an idea! Photodon's MXA film might be perfect for use with a separate adhesive, like HXTAL NYT-1 (permanent) or immersion oil (easily removable but not sure how long it'd last, and not sure what long-term effects it'd have on the monitor), to match the index of refraction of the AG coating. The MXA appears to not have a rough surface on the adhesive side, so that is very promising...
TL;DR: I'm disappointed that Photodon's glossy film doesn't do any better at reducing AG grain than what I've already tried, and probably does worse. It's easily removable and anti-reflective coated, though, which at least makes it worth considering. EDIT: It might also work well with a separate adhesive; this warrants investigation.
Last edited:
Okay, some more findings (more favorable to the Photodon MXA than my first impressions):
How Photodon MXA is better than HEA2000K-clear:
* Photodon MXA film much easier to apply cleanly than HEA2000K. I'm having a very hard time getting the HEA2000K samples I currently have to adhere without micro-air-gaps and macro air bubbles ("fisheyes"). Photodon MXA is really easy to apply clearnly, and the air bubbles squeeze out quite easily.
* Photodon MXA is easily removable, so if you screw up applying it the first time you can remove it, clean it, and try again. This also makes it great for experimentation (for trying different adhesives).
* I put some cedar wood oil under my Photodon MXA sample, and it resulted in a very good refractive index match! I already knew that this oil was a good match, but the cool thing is that it stayed put under the MXA film for at least two days (and I took it off today to do some more experimentation). But maybe oil could be used as a pseudo-adhesive for extended periods of time, and still be easily removable.
* Maybe there's still some residue of the oil after cleaning the MXA film with soap and water (or my memory of my past HEA2000K experiment is more rosy than it should be), but it seems to be pretty decent match now even without oil under it. It looks better for reducing AG grain than the HEA2000K-clear sample I currently have, but maybe that's because I'm not applying the HEA2000K cleanly.
How HEA2000K-clear is better than Photodon MXA:
* The Photodon MXA film is antireflective, but nearly as antireflective as HEA2000K-clear. It really makes a big difference, and is enough to make the HEA2000K-clear's reflections much more unobtrusive than the MXA's reflections. HEA2000K-clear reflects about 52% as much green and blue light as Photodon MXA (and about 62% as much red light). Both have blue-tinted reflections, but the HEA2000K-clear is a deeper blue. [Edit: The older numbers, "68% as much green and blue light" and "85% as much red light" came from a quick hand-held test; the 52% and 62% are from a more careful test done using a tripod.]
* MXA (with index-matching oil) brightens the transmitted LCD light only a bit (2.0%) and tints it slightly brown. HEA2000K-clear (with its adhesive removed, using index-matching oil as an adhesive) brightens the LCD output more (4.1%) and is more neutral in color. [Edit: Added this entry.]
* If you want something that will be permanent, HEA2000K fits the bill, but better have it professionally applied (i.e. send in your monitor to General Digital Optical Bonding Laboratories).
I'm going to order some immersion oil, which should be a near-perfect match for the index of refraction. If all goes well I'm pretty sure I'll go ahead and order Photodon MXA cut to the size of my 30" monitor, and put immersion oil between it and the AG coating. First I'll check if the immersion oil stays put and keeps its properties under Photodon MXA film for a week or two.
The Dell 3007WFP-HC is probably one of the worst offenders for AG coating grain, probably due to its S-IPS small subpixels with lots of black space between. Other monitors that already have less AG grain may have the grain reduced enough by unmodified Photodon MXA to looks great without any need for secondary adhesives.
How Photodon MXA is better than HEA2000K-clear:
* Photodon MXA film much easier to apply cleanly than HEA2000K. I'm having a very hard time getting the HEA2000K samples I currently have to adhere without micro-air-gaps and macro air bubbles ("fisheyes"). Photodon MXA is really easy to apply clearnly, and the air bubbles squeeze out quite easily.
* Photodon MXA is easily removable, so if you screw up applying it the first time you can remove it, clean it, and try again. This also makes it great for experimentation (for trying different adhesives).
* I put some cedar wood oil under my Photodon MXA sample, and it resulted in a very good refractive index match! I already knew that this oil was a good match, but the cool thing is that it stayed put under the MXA film for at least two days (and I took it off today to do some more experimentation). But maybe oil could be used as a pseudo-adhesive for extended periods of time, and still be easily removable.
* Maybe there's still some residue of the oil after cleaning the MXA film with soap and water (or my memory of my past HEA2000K experiment is more rosy than it should be), but it seems to be pretty decent match now even without oil under it. It looks better for reducing AG grain than the HEA2000K-clear sample I currently have, but maybe that's because I'm not applying the HEA2000K cleanly.
How HEA2000K-clear is better than Photodon MXA:
* The Photodon MXA film is antireflective, but nearly as antireflective as HEA2000K-clear. It really makes a big difference, and is enough to make the HEA2000K-clear's reflections much more unobtrusive than the MXA's reflections. HEA2000K-clear reflects about 52% as much green and blue light as Photodon MXA (and about 62% as much red light). Both have blue-tinted reflections, but the HEA2000K-clear is a deeper blue. [Edit: The older numbers, "68% as much green and blue light" and "85% as much red light" came from a quick hand-held test; the 52% and 62% are from a more careful test done using a tripod.]
* MXA (with index-matching oil) brightens the transmitted LCD light only a bit (2.0%) and tints it slightly brown. HEA2000K-clear (with its adhesive removed, using index-matching oil as an adhesive) brightens the LCD output more (4.1%) and is more neutral in color. [Edit: Added this entry.]
* If you want something that will be permanent, HEA2000K fits the bill, but better have it professionally applied (i.e. send in your monitor to General Digital Optical Bonding Laboratories).
I'm going to order some immersion oil, which should be a near-perfect match for the index of refraction. If all goes well I'm pretty sure I'll go ahead and order Photodon MXA cut to the size of my 30" monitor, and put immersion oil between it and the AG coating. First I'll check if the immersion oil stays put and keeps its properties under Photodon MXA film for a week or two.
The Dell 3007WFP-HC is probably one of the worst offenders for AG coating grain, probably due to its S-IPS small subpixels with lots of black space between. Other monitors that already have less AG grain may have the grain reduced enough by unmodified Photodon MXA to looks great without any need for secondary adhesives.
Last edited:
Sounds very promising.
It seems to me like using oil when applying the film should make it even easier to get rid of air bubbles and whatnot.
What type of immersion oil have you ordered? Looks like they come in different types grouped by viscosity?
Anything to watch out for? (I've tried googling around and saw some cheaper ones that looked like they were brownish, but I assume we'd want it to be perfectly clear?)
Got my samples today, will have a look when I get home from work.
It seems to me like using oil when applying the film should make it even easier to get rid of air bubbles and whatnot.
What type of immersion oil have you ordered? Looks like they come in different types grouped by viscosity?
Anything to watch out for? (I've tried googling around and saw some cheaper ones that looked like they were brownish, but I assume we'd want it to be perfectly clear?)
Got my samples today, will have a look when I get home from work.
Last edited:
Just tried applying the MXH and the MXA film without any other adhesives and the difference is very noticable (most noticable with the MXA film of course). I see much less of a rainboweffect on bright colors and darker colors seem much deeper. Contrast is much higher and reading text is much less of a strain on the eye.
If immersion oil makes it even better I can die a happy man.
Will order immersion oil from somewhere and try it, but will probably order a large film for my screen no matter the results.
The only thing I'm a bit worried about are direct reflections which are quite a bit worse (no surprise there). In my current location I have no problems making sure there are no light sources interfering with my setup, but I'm moving in a couple of months and my new home office will probably be less gloomy.
Things to consider when buying immersion oil? (see edited post above as well)
If immersion oil makes it even better I can die a happy man.
Will order immersion oil from somewhere and try it, but will probably order a large film for my screen no matter the results.
The only thing I'm a bit worried about are direct reflections which are quite a bit worse (no surprise there). In my current location I have no problems making sure there are no light sources interfering with my setup, but I'm moving in a couple of months and my new home office will probably be less gloomy.
Things to consider when buying immersion oil? (see edited post above as well)
Last edited:
Some pictures of bottles of immersion oil might look brown just because the bottle is translucent brown.
Edit: Also, even if the liquid is brown, it won't matter. You'll be using a very thin coating of it. Some of the oils I've experimented with are yellow or brown in large quantities, but on my monitor they're clear.
I ordered Type A immersion oil directly from Cargille Labs. The "Type A" has a low viscosity of 150 cps (like maple syrup). For all I know, the higher-viscosity versions may work better for this application, but I suspect they may be worse — so I'm sticking with something close in viscosity to the oils I've already experimented with. My order has not been delivered yet.
The oils I've experimented with so far have been low-viscosity, and a really neat thing is that they're self-leveling. All I have to do is rub them onto the screen, and at first it looks really glittery, but then the oil levels itself out and looks quite smooth — until dust begins to settle, and the oil disperses, which is of course what the MXA film will solve.
Immersion Oil probably won't have a perfectly matching index of refraction. But it will be so close that you probably won't be able to detect any remaining sparkle or grain with your eyes. I can't even see the sparkle under Scotch Packaging Tape (but can detect it photographically), and I expect immersion oil will perform better than that.
Nevertheless I'm going for as perfect a match as I can get, since I think that even if I can't consciously see the sparkle, it will still have an effect on my enjoyment of viewing images on-screen. Also it'll be a learning experience, finding that optimum index of refraction; it'll teach us something about the AG coating used by LG.
The Cargille immersion oil has an index of 1.5150 at 589.3 nm wavelength at 23°C, but for every °C the temperature rises, the index will drop by 0.00033 (or for most other oils, about 0.0004). I used an infrared thermometer and found that my monitor's surface temperature ranges from 37°C to 43°C at maximum brightness. So the immersion oil's index will drop to 1.5150-(40-23)*0.00033 = 1.509. The AG coating's index is very close to 1.515 according to my experimental data so far (using oils that aren't designed to have an exact index), which suggests it's made of crown glass. BK7 glass (a very common type of crown glass) has an index of 1.517 at 589.3 nm and a very small temperature coefficient, about 2*10^-6.
So my calculations and guesses lead me to think that Cargille's "Refractive Index Liquids" will achieve a closer match than their Immersion Oil, mainly due to the temperature coefficient. The catch is that these are much more expensive. I have ordered the 1.520 and 1.522 refractive index liquids, and will try both of them separately and a half-and-half mixture, and compare these results to each other and the Type A Immersion Oil results. (After ordering I realized something I'd overlooked, and I should have ordered 1.522 and 1.524. Calculation: 1.517+(40-25)*0.000407 = 1.523. Oh well; if I find that the optimum is higher than 1.522 I guess I might order the 1.524.)
Applying a huge piece of MXA film over the 645 mm by 405 mm area of my screen should be... interesting. I think I'd have no hope of avoiding visible dust getting caught under the film if I were not going to be using oil.
Last edited:
I've been keeping a de-adhesived HEA2000K-clear sample and a MXA sample on my monitor for several days now (both with oil underneath), and I'm increasingly thinking that I don't want to settle for MXA. It's not nearly as anti-reflective as HEA2000K-clear; the difference is quite dramatic. HEA2000K-clear also lets more light through, and is more neutral whereas MXA has a slight brown tint.
The problem of course is that HEA2000K-clear is wrong for the job in every other way. Its adhesive is a bad optical match, and while the adhesive can be removed using oil, this leaves a very scratch-vulnerable surface. Putting oil under this surface hides most of the scratches but some can still be seen, and the oil gradually leaks from the edges of the de-adhesived HEA2000K-clear.
So I'm thinking the best solution available might be to stick HEA2000K-clear onto some basic clear plastic film to neutralize its adhesive, and then use oil as a pseudo-adhesive under the plastic film. MXA film is rather expensive to be used just as a platform for HEA2000K-clear, and I'm not sure yet how its AR-coated surface would deal with having an acrylic adhesive stuck to it. I'm thinking something like one of these plastic films might work well (Edit: probably not; I called them and found out that their polyester films have no hard coat, i.e. no scratch resistance).
However there's still the problem of applying the HEA2000K-clear onto the plastic film, which might have to be professionally done. And I'm not sure yet whether plastic film with no adhesive will keep oil under it without leaking; the MXA's silicon resin adhesive might actually be helping to keep the oil in place.
EDIT: It appears I was wrong — the oil is somehow escaping from under the MXA film. Whatever's happening, evaporation, absorption or something else, it's happening uniformly — the effectiveness of MXA+oil in reducing AG coating grain just gradually reduces; presumably after enough time, it would be almost as bad as it is with no oil. However, the oil seems to be well trapped under the de-adhesived HEA2000K-clear, except that it is gradually escaping from the edges. And in fact, when I put my nose to the MXA film, I could smell the oil much more strongly than when I put my nose to the HEA2000K-clear.
Whether the same thing will happen with immersion oil, I don't know. I should be receiving it on Monday.
The problem of course is that HEA2000K-clear is wrong for the job in every other way. Its adhesive is a bad optical match, and while the adhesive can be removed using oil, this leaves a very scratch-vulnerable surface. Putting oil under this surface hides most of the scratches but some can still be seen, and the oil gradually leaks from the edges of the de-adhesived HEA2000K-clear.
So I'm thinking the best solution available might be to stick HEA2000K-clear onto some basic clear plastic film to neutralize its adhesive, and then use oil as a pseudo-adhesive under the plastic film. MXA film is rather expensive to be used just as a platform for HEA2000K-clear, and I'm not sure yet how its AR-coated surface would deal with having an acrylic adhesive stuck to it. I'm thinking something like one of these plastic films might work well (Edit: probably not; I called them and found out that their polyester films have no hard coat, i.e. no scratch resistance).
However there's still the problem of applying the HEA2000K-clear onto the plastic film, which might have to be professionally done. And I'm not sure yet whether plastic film with no adhesive will keep oil under it without leaking; the MXA's silicon resin adhesive might actually be helping to keep the oil in place.
EDIT: It appears I was wrong — the oil is somehow escaping from under the MXA film. Whatever's happening, evaporation, absorption or something else, it's happening uniformly — the effectiveness of MXA+oil in reducing AG coating grain just gradually reduces; presumably after enough time, it would be almost as bad as it is with no oil. However, the oil seems to be well trapped under the de-adhesived HEA2000K-clear, except that it is gradually escaping from the edges. And in fact, when I put my nose to the MXA film, I could smell the oil much more strongly than when I put my nose to the HEA2000K-clear.
Whether the same thing will happen with immersion oil, I don't know. I should be receiving it on Monday.
Last edited:
Hmm, hope immersion oil will fare better.
I noticed cargille has an oil designed for higher temperatures (around your measured surface temperatures), but I dunno if it prevents evaporation or if it's designed just around having the proper refraction index at those temperatures.
Please keep posting if you discover anything using immersion oil.
I've yet to order any, waiting to see if my sis' can get some from work, otherwise i think i'll order some off ebay (shipping costs from cargille were quite dissapointing along with the minimum order limit).
Have you tried using oil with any of the other films that came with the sample package?
I noticed cargille has an oil designed for higher temperatures (around your measured surface temperatures), but I dunno if it prevents evaporation or if it's designed just around having the proper refraction index at those temperatures.
Please keep posting if you discover anything using immersion oil.
I've yet to order any, waiting to see if my sis' can get some from work, otherwise i think i'll order some off ebay (shipping costs from cargille were quite dissapointing along with the minimum order limit).
Have you tried using oil with any of the other films that came with the sample package?
Last edited:
I got my immersion oil on Monday. Still have more experiments to do, but what I can say at this point is: Photodon MXA film + Cargille Type A Immersion Oil reduces the grain noise in my LCD to 30.3% of what it normally is. That's about as good as Scotch Packaging Tape, which reduces it to 29.3%. (Given the error in measurement and calculation I'd call that no significant difference.) With both of these, the sparkle/grain is virtually impossible to detect with my eyes alone (it almost blends in to the noise of my retina/brain system). The best I've been able to achieve is with a 50/50 clove oil / cedar oil mix (with nothing covering it — didn't last long, eventually the oil dispersed) which reduced the grain noise to 15.6%. I expect I'll get an even better result with the Cargille Refractive Index Liquids (I ordered 1.520 and 1.522).
I still don't know if MXA + immersion oil will last long enough to be useful. After two days it looked just as good, but then I took it off to do another experiment (and have yet to put it back on). As I noted in an earlier post, the clove/cedar oil mix under MXA film was eventually absorbed or evaporated somehow, reducing the "noise reduction" of the MXA almost to what it is with no oil. This may or may not happen with immersion oil. Removing the bubbles from underneath the MXA film, with immersion oil between it and the LCD, was easy as expected. Cleaning the oil from the front of the small MXA sample to restore its antireflective property is a bit tricky, but can be done in a reasonable amount of time (and might actually be easier with a larger piece that doesn't slide around).
I haven't bothered experimenting with the other Photodon samples yet because I know they'll have more noise, due to their all being matte (to varying degrees). However I suppose it might be worth trying the least matte kind.
The Cargille Type A Immersion Oil says "safe-to-handle" on the label, but the Refractive Index Liquids say "Avoid: Vapor and contact." I didn't expect this. For this reason I haven't experimented with them yet, and will probably contact Cargille before I do, to ask just how careful I need to be. Even if I use a respirator and gloves during the experiment, there will be some residue and smell on my LCD for a while after I clean it off.
I still don't know if MXA + immersion oil will last long enough to be useful. After two days it looked just as good, but then I took it off to do another experiment (and have yet to put it back on). As I noted in an earlier post, the clove/cedar oil mix under MXA film was eventually absorbed or evaporated somehow, reducing the "noise reduction" of the MXA almost to what it is with no oil. This may or may not happen with immersion oil. Removing the bubbles from underneath the MXA film, with immersion oil between it and the LCD, was easy as expected. Cleaning the oil from the front of the small MXA sample to restore its antireflective property is a bit tricky, but can be done in a reasonable amount of time (and might actually be easier with a larger piece that doesn't slide around).
I haven't bothered experimenting with the other Photodon samples yet because I know they'll have more noise, due to their all being matte (to varying degrees). However I suppose it might be worth trying the least matte kind.
The Cargille Type A Immersion Oil says "safe-to-handle" on the label, but the Refractive Index Liquids say "Avoid: Vapor and contact." I didn't expect this. For this reason I haven't experimented with them yet, and will probably contact Cargille before I do, to ask just how careful I need to be. Even if I use a respirator and gloves during the experiment, there will be some residue and smell on my LCD for a while after I clean it off.
Last edited:
Well, after sitting for 7 days, the MXA + immersion oil is reducing noise to 36.1%, compared to 30.3% after just 1 day. So basically it got 16% worse after sitting for 6 extra days. Subjectively it still looks good. I think the oil will probably need to be periodically renewed or changed, maybe once every one or two months. A 4 ounce bottle should still last a pretty long time; a little goes a long way in covering the screen.
I might go ahead and order full-screen-sized MXA film... or maybe I'll do some more tests trying to make HEA2000K-clear usable. I also need to make sure of the long-term safety of using immersion oil this way... haven't contacted Cargille about this yet.
I might go ahead and order full-screen-sized MXA film... or maybe I'll do some more tests trying to make HEA2000K-clear usable. I also need to make sure of the long-term safety of using immersion oil this way... haven't contacted Cargille about this yet.
Got my oil today, and I must say I had a much harder time applying the sample film with it than i thought i would.
I got lots of tiny bubbles of what i think is oil underneath, but i didn't use much at all so it might be air.
Even after trying to "massage" them out they still remain.
How do you apply the film? Cover the backside entirely in oil or just a few drops here and there and then let the act of applying the film onto the screen spread the oil?
edit: tried applying again with more oil, was easier.
Think i got some dirt stuck on the backside of my sample though, guess I gotta make sure the screen is clean, but it'll probably be real hard not to have a flying speck of dust land on it while applying the large film.
I got lots of tiny bubbles of what i think is oil underneath, but i didn't use much at all so it might be air.
Even after trying to "massage" them out they still remain.
How do you apply the film? Cover the backside entirely in oil or just a few drops here and there and then let the act of applying the film onto the screen spread the oil?
edit: tried applying again with more oil, was easier.
Think i got some dirt stuck on the backside of my sample though, guess I gotta make sure the screen is clean, but it'll probably be real hard not to have a flying speck of dust land on it while applying the large film.
Last edited:
Nurf, I had an easy time getting the air bubbles out both with and without oil. I had no oil bubbles, just air bubbles.
1. I cleaned the MXA film with soapy water and a light touch, then rinsing with water.
2. I cleaned the area of the LCD I would be working on and made sure there was as little dust as possible.
3. I dried the MXA film by putting it on the LCD, rubbing the air bubbles out to the edge, then removing the MXA film, drying the LCD and repeating until dry.
4. I smeared a thin layer of immersion oil over the LCD (basically make it as thin as you can without being uneven). It first looked very shimmery and uneven and then quickly self-levelled, reducing the sparkle noise to a very low level.
5. I put the MXA film on over the smeared immersion oil and rubbed the air bubbles out to the edge. (Before this step, there was no oil on the MXA film.)
6. Cleaning the front surface of the MXA film is hard. It will slide around unless you're very careful (having a thin layer of oil helps), and the residual oil will keep getting on the front surface, polluting what you just cleaned. This is mostly because of the MXA sample being small, I think.
7. If cleaning the front surface is too hard right after application, then just clean the center of the front surface, wipe away the excess surrounding the edges, and leave it for some time to dry. Then finishing the cleaning job should be easier (there will be less sliding).
Maybe the high viscosity stuff isn't suited for this purpose. The bubbles should be easy to remove.
BTW, the Type A immersion oil seems to have stabilized under my MXA sample. Subjectively it looks about the same as when I did my last measurement. I'll do another measurement tonight.
1. I cleaned the MXA film with soapy water and a light touch, then rinsing with water.
2. I cleaned the area of the LCD I would be working on and made sure there was as little dust as possible.
3. I dried the MXA film by putting it on the LCD, rubbing the air bubbles out to the edge, then removing the MXA film, drying the LCD and repeating until dry.
4. I smeared a thin layer of immersion oil over the LCD (basically make it as thin as you can without being uneven). It first looked very shimmery and uneven and then quickly self-levelled, reducing the sparkle noise to a very low level.
5. I put the MXA film on over the smeared immersion oil and rubbed the air bubbles out to the edge. (Before this step, there was no oil on the MXA film.)
6. Cleaning the front surface of the MXA film is hard. It will slide around unless you're very careful (having a thin layer of oil helps), and the residual oil will keep getting on the front surface, polluting what you just cleaned. This is mostly because of the MXA sample being small, I think.
7. If cleaning the front surface is too hard right after application, then just clean the center of the front surface, wipe away the excess surrounding the edges, and leave it for some time to dry. Then finishing the cleaning job should be easier (there will be less sliding).
Maybe the high viscosity stuff isn't suited for this purpose. The bubbles should be easy to remove.
BTW, the Type A immersion oil seems to have stabilized under my MXA sample. Subjectively it looks about the same as when I did my last measurement. I'll do another measurement tonight.
Last edited:
My project had a similar focus, though far more simplistic without the R&D...
started with two 24in LEDs
I used the existing bezel top epoxy the glass- the glass was cut at a frame shop. Total cost was about 12 dollars for two peices of glass, with slight AR.
Then I taped off the glass, and used a nice satin, matte black spray paint to border it.
While I was at it- I also made it a bit more VESA compatible for more standardized stands.
After paint-
All buttoned up...
I miss the days where I could just buy a glossy LCD....now a days you mention "glossy" LCD and you feel like you should go into hiding. Viva LCD Revolution. I operate in a low light environment....dont hate.
started with two 24in LEDs
I used the existing bezel top epoxy the glass- the glass was cut at a frame shop. Total cost was about 12 dollars for two peices of glass, with slight AR.
Then I taped off the glass, and used a nice satin, matte black spray paint to border it.
While I was at it- I also made it a bit more VESA compatible for more standardized stands.
After paint-
All buttoned up...
I miss the days where I could just buy a glossy LCD....now a days you mention "glossy" LCD and you feel like you should go into hiding. Viva LCD Revolution. I operate in a low light environment....dont hate.
Last edited: