Hey all,
Ever since Viper777 tried this mod first, unsuccessfully, I been itching to try. So I have been able to do it, and wanted to share my experiences.

Viper777 preformed this mod successfully, to a point, then moved the filter to another location that failed. The location is right before the last obtainable lens. There's the light bulb that attaches in front of a red lens (to cancel the blue light) which reflects off an angled mirror thru the last lens which is a small tile squared pattern lens. The thing was Viper777 was getting his filter bowed in this small area and ended up with an inconstant image. So last night I played around.

It's in this final area that I performed my mod. The area is small and so is the access to it. The trick was not only to get it the right size (sorry, i did not measure mine) but that way you seated the filter. So below I'll step you thru the process. You'll need .2 or .3. Viper777 tried both and concluded the .2 would have been better, however, I had a sheet of .3 so it was easier to play with if I messed up cutting the filter.

-.3 or .2 ND gel filter roughly 3"x3"
- decent pair of tweezers, a pair with somewhat pointed rather then blunt ends-tiny - - flat head screwdriver for help in small access area
- flashlight (may help)
- scissors

Once you get the tv turned around, take out all 15 odd screws and the 4-5 plugs.
Slide the lightengine out and put it on the floor.
Unscrew 4 screws above the light housing and move to the side.
You'll see the small access opening. Place filter inside there
Now, right in front of the tile patterned lens, you'll see flanking plastic rails of sorts. Those are the perfect for holding the filter in place, close to the lens so there is no polarization. So, you may have to put the filter in, see how it fits, pull it out, trim it a few times, etc.
Now, you'll aslo notice a small vertical plastic piece in the center at the top of the tiled lens. You'll need to cut the filter short enough height wise so that it clears under that piece.

It took me quite a few attempts and trimmings before I got it in there. But, once in, it's snug, nearly flush and hopefully will not have an issue with heat.

Now I would like to see what the .2 would do, I'd say I'm getting about a 10%-15% black level improvement. You'll have to turn picture up a little bit to take the edge off the filter. But it works, and looks good. Below are a few pics of the process-

Now, I tried to take some photos with flash off of HD channels, most came out blurry. But Underworld was on and looked very good in a completely dark room. I'll try and get some better pics if someone wants to see more.

The first pic should be SD of Girl next Door. Their Tuxes looked very nice even though it's SD. The second one is Underworld, the only one that wasn't too blurry.

I was just thinking over Viper777's original experience and finally realized what he meant on one part. There is the actual projection lens, it's in the second pic, that is pretty big, 6"x6" maybe. That lens and the light engine, just slide into the back of the set. It may be what Viper777 tried, but you may be able to simply lay a filter big enough down on the lens and slide the light engine back in. That would be so freaking simple and easy. I may do it again to see if that's the case, because that would be ideal for nearly anyone to try. He did mention buckling, I thought he meant in the area that I did my mod at. If the heat isn't an issue, my mod tho difficult, would be fine. However, if this projection lens location is doable, that would be so much easier.

Hey kidred, just curious how is bright scenes with the mod?

I think he is trying to upstage me on the internal pics of this set. ;)

The closeup where you pointed to the small opening, that is where you placed the filter? It just slid in?
This is in the light path from the lamp or the output of the whole assembly?

Zues- Bright scenes are fine, I just went over with Avia and there weren't too many changes. I think color was raised some, but the rest were with a notch or two.

video- :) Yea, that small opening sits between a mirror and a tiled lens. I put my filter in the grooves flanking that tiled mirror. However, you remember taking the light engine out? That black flat metal peice that sits above the projector lens? That would be another possible and easier location. To just slide a bigger filter either on top of that, or under it on top of the projector lens. You'd have to get a bigger filter, either in a big sheet, or bigger piece. I watched HellBoy last night. I'd say blacks are now a very dark grey. Not absolutely black, but not just dark grey, they are very dark grey almost black.

I think that's what Viper meant when he thinks the .2 would be perfect. That would possibly give you absolute (or damn near it) blacks.

But, is this before or after the D-ILA chips?

Ah, dunno. Where is the chip(s)?

There are two options-

1) Where I went, inside the light engine, in the photo, thru the small access opening I slid in a filter 2"x2" maybe in front of a tiled lens. very tedious work.

2)I have not done this, but when you open the back, (first photo) you'll see a black piece above the light engine that attaches to the cabinet. It is just a seal of sorts, it maybe keeps the projector in place. It's a flat square with a circle cut out (IIRC) So the filter could go either above this piece, or below it resting on top of the projector lens itself.

I will probably try the 2nd option as it would be easier to mess with, few screws, quicker, and there would be next to zero heat issues I'm sure. But, you'd need to get the .2 filter at least 8x10 to cut from. maybe get a .2 and a .3 , like $15 each if you look around so you can choose which you prefer.

You guys have some nads to be taking apart your televisions that you paid in the ballpark of $2000-$3000 dollars for. Sheez, I haven't even opened the box on mine yet! :rolleyes:

I think that's what Viper meant when he thinks the .2 would be perfect. That would possibly give you absolute (or damn near it) blacks.

I thought the .2 filter allowed 60 percent of light, .3=50percent, .4=40percent.

This seems to be the best diagram I have on the light path.
Just where was the filter put?

Next, has anyone considered a 'glass' filter instead of a gel?

video- Bottom right hand corner. See where that big arrow is, the bulb? See how a few inches it hits that corner and shoots to the left? That corner has the mirror I mention. To the left of the mirror, on that diagram, is the tiled lens before going down that long pathway. The tiled lens is where I put my filter.

However, I would seriously try the 2nd location I mention as it involves much less work. Viper777 mentioned a glass filter was our only option, but he never placed the filter where I did. That's why I started this thread because AFAIK, this was the first successfully filter mod on the JVC. No need for a glass filter if the cheaper gel will work.

I thought the .2 filter allowed 60 percent of light, .3=50percent, .4=40percent.
Wouldn't it be .2 allows 20%, .3 allows .30% .4 aloows 40% and so on? Seems like they would follow an obvious pattern.

Wouldn't it be .2 allows 20%, .3 allows .30% .4 aloows 40% and so on? Seems like they would follow an obvious pattern.

No. It is counterintuitive, but Zeus is correct.

I was just thinking over Viper777's original experience and finally realized what he meant on one part. There is the actual projection lens, it's in the second pic, that is pretty big, 6"x6" maybe. That lens and the light engine, just slide into the back of the set. It may be what Viper777 tried, but you may be able to simply lay a filter big enough down on the lens and slide the light engine back in. That would be so freaking simple and easy. I may do it again to see if that's the case, because that would be ideal for nearly anyone to try. He did mention buckling, I thought he meant in the area that I did my mod at. If the heat isn't an issue, my mod tho difficult, would be fine. However, if this projection lens location is doable, that would be so much easier.

I believe that is where he tried. If I remember correctly, he said ti was *very* simple, but the buckling was problematic.

I believe that is where he tried. If I remember correctly, he said ti was *very* simple, but the buckling was problematic.That's why wouldn't want to use anyting other than a GLASS lens filter! I would not feel confortable with a piece of 'plastic' there. :(
There are thinner lens filters available is thickness is a issue.

video- I used gel and have absolutely zero issues. Viper777 was trying it in a different location. Additionally, glass would be the only way to use the filter in front of the bulb which was his first attempt when the gel filter melted. Mine has been fine so far and sometimes I'm amazed at my very deep blacks. Excellent mod, I'm waiting for others to try it.

No. It is counterintuitive, but Zeus is correct.

That doesn't make sense to me because I have both .3 and .2 and the .2 is noticeably darker.

Then the 'gel' filter is AFTER the image sensors, NOT before?

Then the 'gel' filter is AFTER the image sensors, NOT before?

K, I think there's some confusion so I'll try to clarify.

Where I have mine installed-
1) 5 inches and a right turn away from the bulb. It's shown in the photos above. There's a little space between the changeable light bulb, a mirror and a tiled lens. All of these are no bigger then 3" and are near the bulb.

Second option that Viper777 mentioned-
1) This is near the optical lens, the final piece before the cabinet. There is a flat metal plate that slides between the lens and the cabinet. It's the easiest place to do a filter mod (I haven't tried this spot yet) but buckling may be an obstacle to overcome. I may try this one just to figure out how.

I used a .3 ND filter cut from a massive 18"x24" or so sheet. I have a .2 3"x3" square (that is darker then the .3) that I have not used. Viper thought the .2 was darker and therefore a better resulting picture. I may agree, all I know is the .3 makes a nice difference, a very nice black is produced.

Speaking of, I wonder where Viper777 has been, I'd love to let him know i found a possible solution.

Then the filter is BEFORE the image devices after the lamp where it should.
I can't imagine if the flwxible gel filter was AFTER the device how it couldn't affect the image? :confused:

Now, it there room for a thin glass filter to go there instead of this gel version?

video- it's AFTER the bulb, so the incoming light is affected. I guess my approach dampens the light source, rather then applying a filter to the picture. I has misunderstood Viper's original method which is why I put my filter where I did. It works, I guess that's the most important, though I remain convinced that I do indeed wish to try applying the filter to the final projector area.

Now, it there room for a thin glass filter to go there instead of this gel version?
When you this, do you mean where I have mine or where Viper did his above the projector? If above the projector, I'll try to explain what you'd be dealing with.

The projector is attached to the light engine as you know, and slides in very closely, under a cut out in the cabinet. There is a black plate the slides between the projector and the cabinet, and screws into the cabinet. I think the plate keeps the projector still, or something similar. Now, I don't think there is room, above this plate is it slides cheek to cheek against the cabinet. There may be room underneath, but you have to deal with the projector sliding into place. I may be wrong on a few of the details, I'm recalling this from memory. I'll have to play around with this mod again and look at the second location in front of the projector. Glass may be too thick, it's hard to say without it all open sitting in front of me.

it's AFTER the bulb, so the incoming light is affected. I guess my approach dampens the light source, rather then applying a filter to the picture Yes, that's what I said. I wouldn't consider anywhere else.When you this, do you mean where I have mine or where Viper did his above the projector?Where you put yours.

Yes, that's what I said. I wouldn't consider anywhere else.Where you put yours.


Well, it's after the bulb but before the projector. Viper's spot puts it after the projector.

No, it's too small for glass. The opening is smaller then the filter, so it has to gel so that you can bend it slightly to get it inside the small oval-ish opening.

Wouldn't it be .2 allows 20%, .3 allows .30% .4 aloows 40% and so on? Seems like they would follow an obvious pattern.

This link should answer that:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h2/neutral.shtml

This link should answer that:

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/support/h2/neutral.shtml


I was right tho, the smaller the number means the greater the light blockage. So a .2 would block more light then a .3. Thanks for the link and clearing that up.

OK, can i ask he stupidest question known to mankind? If you guys are spending just a few bucks on these filters, installing them, and supposedly increasing the black levels by a pretty good percentage, why the hell isn't Samsung, Sony, Toshiba etc. doing this? If this is all it takes why wouldn't something so relatively easy to do be done by these companies? Don't they want to sell more TV's? You mean to tell me people at Samsung couldn't walk to the camera store, buy a few thousand of these filters, then place them inside before shipping? Sheeesh.

Kid Red,
actually you have it backwards. a higher number, such as 0.6, would only allow 25% light to pass through. a 0.3 ND filter only allows 50%.

lipcrkr; shhhhhh.............
don't tell them that, then all these filter companies won't sell anymore ND filters! :p

I would assume the memtality is, the brightest set on the floor wins! And the prize has to go to JVC.
Probably the number one complaint of RPTV' s (and most TV's) from joe average was they aren't bright enough to use in your typical California sunroom (plenty of windows, white everything; walls, ceiling etc.).
Well now they are. Of course if you want to use them in a room for proper TV viewing (e.g.; home theater), forget it! :mad:

OK, can i ask he stupidest question known to mankind? If you guys are spending just a few bucks on these filters, installing them, and supposedly increasing the black levels by a pretty good percentage, why the hell isn't Samsung, Sony, Toshiba etc. doing this? If this is all it takes why wouldn't something so relatively easy to do be done by these companies? Don't they want to sell more TV's? You mean to tell me people at Samsung couldn't walk to the camera store, buy a few thousand of these filters, then place them inside before shipping? Sheeesh.

I agree with you. The cost factor shouldn't come into this because of such a marked improvement in the PQ. This technology has suddenly become very competitive now, and they should be looking for an edge over the other guys. In every morning meeting they should discuss what was said in AVS Forums the night before, if they want to keep up on the pulse of things. There are very knowledgeable people here.

-A-

In every morning meeting they should discuss what was said in AVS Forums the night before, if they want to keep up on the pulse of things never happen...........we are a minority.

Kid Red,
actually you have it backwards. a higher number, such as 0.6, would only allow 25% light to pass through. a 0.3 ND filter only allows 50%.

That just totally blows my mind. Then how can a .2 be darker then a .3 if that same .3 allows less light then the .2? I have a .2 Kodak filter that is darker then a sheet of .3. Very confusing. :confused:

OK, can i ask he stupidest question known to mankind? If you guys are spending just a few bucks on these filters, installing them, and supposedly increasing the black levels by a pretty good percentage, why the hell isn't Samsung, Sony, Toshiba etc. doing this? If this is all it takes why wouldn't something so relatively easy to do be done by these companies? Don't they want to sell more TV's? You mean to tell me people at Samsung couldn't walk to the camera store, buy a few thousand of these filters, then place them inside before shipping? Sheeesh.


TV manufactures believe they have a very good product. It's those of us who think and then decide that we can stretch a little bit more out of the product to produce a greater more pleasing end result. Their is a filter mod for the Sonys, Pannys and now the JVC. Not sure if someone has modded the Hitachi.

Folks, I am afraid the TV companies don't think like that. Even in bulk these filters are expensive and they would have to rework their designs to make it easy to insert one. I think it would be a great idea and was talking about it with our general manager the other day. Anyone who did it would have to come up with an explanation or have to admit that the original design was lousy.

I was thinking, make it like a port plug on a speaker, which is while reduce bass if a speaker is placed close to a wall. "Use this filter if most of your viewing is in a dark room." Of course it will never happen. The auto iris is about as close as we will get. Lew

OK, I dissambled again a few nights ago to explore the projector area and to check on my cureently installed filter. All looked fine with my filter so it appears heat in not a factor in it's location- awesome. I did look at the projector area and have concluded there are two distinct ways of applying the filter. I can understand why it kept buckling on Viper.

1) The filter should be glass, and it should be cut into a circular shape with the diameter of 4 1/8". This would allow it to sit on top of the projector inside these 4 opposite plastic arms to prevent movement. The glass should be resting inside the plastic frame encasing the projector and should not be a problem for the black plate to clear it.

2) You might be able to use a gel filter, but you'd have to cut out a frame of sorts to hold it in place and flat. A cardboard frame cut to fit inside the hexagon (I think) shape in which the projector lies with an inside circular cutout. Lay the gel filter on top of the cardboard cutout, I wouldn't feel right about laying it on top of the projector itself, touching the glass. But it may be alright. The cardboard or similar dense & sturdy material would eliminate the buckle and keep the filter seated correctly.

Not sure what a 4" glass ND filter would run or to have it cut, but my method is cheaper and not very difficult to successfully complete. But, at least we know we have 2 locations and at least 3 possible methods with 1 confirmed.

Even if the mod was cheap I doubt manufacturers would do it. Black levels is not a deciding factor for most people when buying a TV. JVC made this TV exceedingly bright for a reason: so it stands out on the showroom floor.

The majority of buyers have no idea about black levels, screen-door effect, rainbows ... or any of these technical details. They walk into Best Buy, say "wow" and plop down their cash. This is the market JVC is after with these TVs.

Yes, that is the unfortunate truth :(

That just totally blows my mind. Then how can a .2 be darker then a .3 if that same .3 allows less light then the .2? I have a .2 Kodak filter that is darker then a sheet of .3. Very confusing. :confused:

Maybe it's missing a decimal place. The ND scale is similar to the dB scale.

From Melles Griot: Optical density (D) is defined as the base 10 logarithm of the reciprocal of transmittance (T).

D = log(1/T), or T = 10^-D

Play around with it on your calculator. Notice that the 0.3ND filter cuts the light into half. So what if you had two of them together? 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25, so only a quarter of the light would get thru. So 0.3 ND + 0.3 ND is 0.6 ND.

And you're right, 0.2 should be darker.

Regards
JnC (photon jockey)

Maybe it's missing a decimal place. The ND scale is similar to the dB scale.

From Melles Griot: Optical density (D) is defined as the base 10 logarithm of the reciprocal of transmittance (T).

D = log(1/T), or T = 10^-D

Play around with it on your calculator. Notice that the 0.3ND filter cuts the light into half. So what if you had two of them together? 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25, so only a quarter of the light would get thru. So 0.3 ND + 0.3 ND is 0.6 ND.

And you're right, 0.2 should be darker.

Regards
JnC (photon jockey)

Does the .2 being darker therefore mean it blocks more or less light?

According to the post someone linked to at Kodak-

0.1 80% transmitted light
0.2 63% transmitted light
0.3 50% transmitted light

So according to the above abbreviated chart, the .3 filter transmits less light and would therefore be darker then the .2 filter. So by transmitted light do they forget to mention 'blocked' transmitted light? So the chart above should have the .2 filter 'blocking' 63% of light?

Even in bulk these filters are expensive and they would have to rework their designs to make it easy to insert one. A filter is not what is needed, a lower wattage lamp is............

Here are two examples of glass ND filters. The first is a 77mm, the second is a 95mm. 95mm is around 3 3/4 ". That wouldn't be large enough, right?

http://www.canogacamera.com/e/env/0001JNHa8eUZDvgYGk7H8M8/schneider/bw_neutraldensity/bw_uv101.html?link=-DD-/-DD-/-DD-/info_pages/cam_info.html&item=invnew:78511

http://www.camerafilters.com/detail.aspx?id=290

Here is another table that duplicates the other posted;

http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/filters/nd/

Does anyone make neutral density eyeglasses? If you could make them as dark as telescope solar filters then for the first time in history the crummy displays that everyone talks about here could finally reproduce great blacks!

Do you admire people who are more positively dense or those that are neutrally dense?

One last retarded question--I'm sure Filters could make a picture look better but it got me to thinking about Polarized sunglasses--they cut out glare when you're fishing--could they cut out some glare on displays? See I can ask intelligent questions--I'm not dense I'm definitely lightweight!

I came across this table from SchneiderOptics. They show a 95 & 105mm screw on filter, a 4.5" drop in and a 4x4" piece of glass. Look at the last line.
KidRed; would any of these work?

video- hard to say from looking at that table. All I know is above the projector-should you, decide to do the mod in this location and not my location- you'd need circular glass filter slightly wider then 4", 4 1/8" or so. The 4" glass circular lens would simply sit on top of the projector lens. It can't be too thick because it looks as though that black plate slides above the projector to keep it in place. If the filter is too thick, it may impede that black plate therefore rendering the mod inefective. How much do those glass filters cost though? My sheet of .3 cost me like $6 (but they had a minimum order of $15), if that, and took me 20 minutes to install, tho a steady hand and some patience are required.

http://shop.store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/leefilsheetc.html

Maybe it's missing a decimal place. The ND scale is similar to the dB scale.

From Melles Griot: Optical density (D) is defined as the base 10 logarithm of the reciprocal of transmittance (T).

D = log(1/T), or T = 10^-D

Play around with it on your calculator. Notice that the 0.3ND filter cuts the light into half. So what if you had two of them together? 0.5 x 0.5 = 0.25, so only a quarter of the light would get thru. So 0.3 ND + 0.3 ND is 0.6 ND.

And you're right, 0.2 should be darker.

Regards
JnC (photon jockey)

I think this explains it best and backs up what I was saying.

http://www.photographic.com/images/archivesart/202filters.36.jpg

Kid Red; I'm talking about your location using a glass instead of a gel filter.
http://store.yahoo.com/cinemasupplies/iffil4x4netd.html

thanks for the link

video- Ah, you cant use a glass filter in my spot because the opening is more narrow then the filter needs to be. So the gel filter bows slightly allowing it to fit inside. Then you need to be able to grab one end with tweezers and move it into one of the flanking grooves, then repeat with the other side. So having the gel filter pliable makes this possible.

It 'bends' to fit in there you say?

Yes. If the filter is 3" wide, the opening is like 2 1/2" wide, so you slightly bend or bow the filter to get it inside the opening where it can then expand to it's normal flat state. This is why a glass filter would not work here. If you cut the glass filter to fit into the opening, it would be smaller then the lens which may produce a area of the picture where the shortness of the filter is apparent.

How thick are these 'gel' filters? IOW's how rigid are they?

There are really thin, ah, paper thin, but made of plastic. Think the plastic filters you get with Avia. They aren't very rigid, you could crease them if not careful. That was my biggest concern. But bowing it to fit into the opening is no concern.

Interesting excerpt from a 12/2004 review of the JVC HD-61Z575:

http://hometheatermag.com/rearprojectiontvs/1204jvc/

"What would make this TV perfect?... a lamp with a high and low setting would put this set over the top. At 25 percent brightness, the HD-61Z575 would still be putting out 40 odd ft-L and have a truly impressive black level. Is it that easy? Not at all, but I can dream, can't I?"

Sounds like the reviewer is wishing for a 2 f-stop decrease in light output (ie, 25% transmission). You guys are on the right track.

Interesting, the color temp. having over 1200k spread.

It does seem to be a very large deviation from 6500K. Apparently this didn't bother the reveiwer, as he said the display was "perfect" except for lack of a tuner and ability to decrease light output. In general most reviews put great emphasis on gray scale accuracy.

Wonder why it could not be adjusted better?

My Sony KDF42WE655 was very blue (and very bright). When I put in a .4 Kodak Wratten gel filter it dropped the color temp very close to 6500 over the whole scale. My tech hardly did anything to get my gray scale right on. He was amazed. From my experience I think the JVC could handle a .5 filter no problem. BTW, where did you get a sheet of gel filter for that kind of price? The Kodak cost around $80 for a 4/4 inch sheet. Lew

I provided a link above for the Lee filters I ordered. Kodak was way too expensive and I'm not sure why the huge disparity in price but I'd rather start at the $7 one.

I provided a link above for the Lee filters I ordered. Kodak was way too expensive and I'm not sure why the huge disparity in price but I'd rather start at the $7 one.

Hm...so on their site now I see a .15, .3 and .6. I was hoping to purcahse a sheet of .3 and a sheet of .2.

I really want to do this mod, but I think I need to wait a bit. I think I need to have JVC replace the light engine on my set (because it has green streaks across the screen. They are very visible when the screen first begins to warm up, but become less so after a while. For the most part it's not a problem, but there seems to be an overall green tint to the picture. I'm trying to decide whether to try this filter first, or get the light engine replaced.

bluescale- Knowing they are coming out, you could always test, but I'd take the filter out before the tech gets there. He probably won't notice it, but why chance it.

I think the .3 is fine. I've been noticing that some programs the blacks are too deep and i may have to re-calibrate with avia. Some HD channels, the blacks are almost too black. I never calibrated for cable, just for DVD.

Kid; how thick is this material and how long has it been in place so far?

video- Like I said above its paper thin like the filters you get with Avia. Not sure, when did I start this thread? Two weeks maybe?

bluescale- Knowing they are coming out, you could always test, but I'd take the filter out before the tech gets there. He probably won't notice it, but why chance it.

I think the .3 is fine. I've been noticing that some programs the blacks are too deep and i may have to re-calibrate with avia. Some HD channels, the blacks are almost too black. I never calibrated for cable, just for DVD.

But a .3 filter will reduce the light output more than a .2 filter. .2 filter decreases the light output by a 3rd, while the .3 reduces it by half.

bump


Kid Red... this thread is golden. I love this tv so much, all I wish is that it was a bit darker. I'm gonna be doing thing mod. I'm gonna order some of that .3 nd gel filter.


All I need, is a bit clearer explanation of the process. Not that the current one is bad, but I'm just not 100% sure of everything right now.

You make it sound so easy...=D

anyways, darker blacks would make this set perfect...please help me.

But a .3 filter will reduce the light output more than a .2 filter. .2 filter decreases the light output by a 3rd, while the .3 reduces it by half.

Ok, so now you're confusing me. The .2 filter is darker then the .3 it allows LESS light then the .3? Why would a darker filter allow less light? I don't know, I should have paid more attention in photography class, anyways, I'm using the .3 because my .2 was darker and and too small. Not sure what the darker .2 would do.

Remji- Check your PM.

This ND filter stuff sure is confusing at times.

Kodak has the .2 filter as transmitting 63% light, the .3 filter transmitting 50% light.

http://www.kodak.com/US/en/motion/products/wratten/neutralDensity.shtml

I think I'll get one of each.

Cheers

Not really confusing. 0.3 allows 50% light through the filter, 0.6 allows 25% light, etc. The higher the number, the more light that is blocked.

Not really confusing. 0.3 allows 50% light through the filter, 0.6 allows 25% light, etc. The higher the number, the more light that is blocked.

I'm catching on now, but... Kid Red says his .2 is darker?

Cheers

Ok, so now you're confusing me. The .2 filter is darker then the .3 it allows LESS light then the .3? Why would a darker filter allow less light? I don't know, I should have paid more attention in photography class, anyways, I'm using the .3 because my .2 was darker and and too small. Not sure what the darker .2 would do.

I'm not sure what to tell you. From a photography standpoint (and that's what I'm basing all of this off of), a .3 filter blocks more light than a .2 filter. I have no idea why you're .2 filter is darker. Is it a lot darer? Is it possible you got a 2 filter rather than a .2? That would make things VERY dark, however, since a 2 filter would only allow something like 1% of the light to get through. These tvs are bright, but not that bright ;)

Bluescale- It's a .2 and I swear the sheet is a .3. The .2 is a 3x3 inch square wraten filter and was $20 where as the .3 gel sheet was 12"x20" or something and was $6. The 3x3" .3 is darker then the sheet. I don't have info on the sheet, but I assume I ordered a .2 and a .3 and I know the 3x3 is a .2 making the sheet .3. Not sure why the .2 is darker, that's what is adding to my confusion. You are saying the .3 should be darker? Weird because I think Viper said he tried the .3 but felt it wasn't dark enough and then suggested the .2 would be better. But I'll take your word for it. So, then the .2 may be a worth while option. I assumed .2 would be darker and maybe too dark. However, I think a mod-ed set would be to be calibrated ISF to check the greyscale before knowing which filter produced more accurate results.

Outstanding thread guys - keep refining

E

I installed a 0.3 ND filter recently in my Sony 55XS955 and had it ISF calibrated afterwards. The filter only slightly changed the grayscale and gamma. A good quality ND filter should in theory not change anything but the light output. I am installing a 0.6 ND filter next week which will make my black level even darker. It will only allow 25% light through the filter, as opposed to 50% with the 0.3. My tv has a 132 watt lamp so it is bright even with the 0.3 ND filter installed. I imagine it will be a bit darker with the 0.6 but there will be the illusion of vibrant colors & whites as the darks will be so much darker. The 0.3 ND filter brought the black level reading from 0.09 down to 0.04, so I think the 0.6 ND filter will bring it closer to CRT RPTV black level. I saw a big improvement with the just the 0.3 ND filter. The picture is much more dimensional and "deeper."

Bluescale- It's a .2 and I swear the sheet is a .3. The .2 is a 3x3 inch square wraten filter and was $20 where as the .3 gel sheet was 12"x20" or something and was $6. The 3x3" .3 is darker then the sheet. I don't have info on the sheet, but I assume I ordered a .2 and a .3 and I know the 3x3 is a .2 making the sheet .3. Not sure why the .2 is darker, that's what is adding to my confusion. You are saying the .3 should be darker? Weird because I think Viper said he tried the .3 but felt it wasn't dark enough and then suggested the .2 would be better. But I'll take your word for it. So, then the .2 may be a worth while option. I assumed .2 would be darker and maybe too dark. However, I think a mod-ed set would be to be calibrated ISF to check the greyscale before knowing which filter produced more accurate results.

Kid Red, Maybe the filters are off because they are cheap. $6 for a 12x20 sheet sounds way too low for it to be a good filter. Just a guess, but if there weren't better quality and consistency to the Kodak Gel filters no one would buy them. Lew

$6 for a 12x20 sheet sounds way too low for it to be a good filterThank you.........

Here is a quote from umr from my thread on a Sony KD42we655 ND mod. I first heard of ND filters from one of his threads:

umr
AV Consultant

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 4,674

I would stick with Kodak gel filters or Lee resin filters above the lens. I have talked to folks who tried Lee polyester who ended up with reflection problems.

As far as filters in front of the lamp. I was never comfortable with that modification. You might reduce the cooling by obstructing air flow which could cause a fire or melt something. You could also melt whatever is placed in there causing permanent damage. Look at a recent post on the XBR950 about a melted lamp door for an indication of the possible consequences. I have read of one successful attempt at this, but I would not do it.

__________________
W. Jeff Meier

AccuCal- Audio/Video Calibration & Consulting

Polyester = gel. I had read about "sparklies" on the screen when using Lee gel filters. This may be the reflection problem he is talking about. Lew

Here is a quote from umr from my thread on a Sony KD42we655 ND mod. I first heard of ND filters from one of his threads:

umr
AV Consultant

Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sugar Land, TX
Posts: 4,674

I would stick with Kodak gel filters or Lee resin filters above the lens. I have talked to folks who tried Lee polyester who ended up with reflection problems.

As far as filters in front of the lamp. I was never comfortable with that modification. You might reduce the cooling by obstructing air flow which could cause a fire or melt something. You could also melt whatever is placed in there causing permanent damage. Look at a recent post on the XBR950 about a melted lamp door for an indication of the possible consequences. I have read of one successful attempt at this, but I would not do it.

__________________
W. Jeff Meier

AccuCal- Audio/Video Calibration & Consulting

Polyester = gel. I had read about "sparklies" on the screen when using Lee gel filters. This may be the reflection problem he is talking about. Lew


Interesting information. Of course, taking this tidbit of info into consideration makes this a more expensive modification...

If the Lee gel filters are consistent on their spec's they could still be used to experiment. If problems arise with reflections one could always upgrade to the Kodak. Red's experience indicates they might not be very consistent. However, he hasn't mentioned any image problems. In my case, the $80 was money well spent as I wouldn't be happy with the TV without the mod. I think the mod will do similar things for the JVCs. Lew

If the Lee gel filters are consistent on their spec's they could still be used to experiment. If problems arise with reflections one could always upgrade to the Kodak. Red's experience indicates they might not be very consistent. However, he hasn't mentioned any image problems. In my case, the $80 was money well spent as I wouldn't be happy with the TV without the mod. I think the mod will do similar things for the JVCs. Lew

I'm seeing other brands of resign based filters that are about $30. I think I might experiment with that. Although, after spending a couple grand on a tv, what's another $80? Heck, a bias light would cost about as much, and it would be a work around, not a real fix. My main concern is spending $80 on a filter and then damaging it.

As far as filters in front of the lamp. I was never comfortable with that modification. You might reduce the cooling by obstructing air flow which could cause a fire or melt something. You could also melt whatever is placed in there causing permanent damage. Sounds as I wrote that. I don't think air flow is a issue here. I feel the 'gel' melting and sticking to surfaces on either side of where the filter would go. That's why I suggested glass, but Kid says it won't fit.My main concern is spending $80 on a filter and then damaging it. As opposed to spending $6 and damaging the set........... :eek:

What I would do is try to take a temperature measurement with the aid of a IR thermometer (under $150) just after the unit was turned off so the light wouldn't affect the reading to see just how hot that area gets.

Sounds as I wrote that. I don't think air flow is a issue here. I feel the 'gel' melting and sticking to surfaces on either side of where the filter would go. That's why I suggested glass, but Kid says it won't fit.

This is why I think the second placement option is ideal. There are no heat issues, since it's in front of the lense rather than the light. Glass would be an option in that location, although it would probably have to be customer cut, which would make it quite expensive. I think gel or resign would work just fine there, if one were to make a caddy of sorts for the filter. I haven't tried it, of course, I'm just theorizing based on what Kid has said.



As opposed to spending $6 and damaging the set........... :eek:

I have no intention of putting the filter anywhere near the lamp. That said, Kid has had no issue with heat so far. Still, I'm not that brave.

You remove the heat issue by placing the filter after everything, BUT you have the high possibility that it will distort (somehow) the image.

I'm not convinced that putting ANY filter, glass or otherwise, wouldn't affect the image quality. Look at all the sets with CA issues.

didn't distort my image :p

just need a quality filter and a quality install. the difference in picture quality is worth the effort.

K, my $6 is a Lee Polyester. I didn't want to spend $80 and have the mod not work. So I went cheap because no one had mod-ed this set and I didn't want to waste money. I may get the Kodak filter once I receive my replacement set.

My location is not in front of the lamp, it's maybe 6" away and around a corner. It's been over a month and no issues so far. Viper777 placed his filter in front of the bulb and it fried in 4 days so I knew not go get close to the bulb. So, it's early, but so far heat isn't an issue.

There are no image flaws, no polarization, no reflections that I have noticed, no image distortion, nothing. My filter is absolutely flush to the last lens before the projector, it's as if that lens is a filter itself. A Kodak filter may provide a cleaner greyscale, that remains to be seen as I'm am not a ISF with any ISF equipment. All I know is my blacks have gotten blacker.

I make no scientific claims as to what this mod will do or the results including any damage that may or may no occur other then what I see on my set after the mod I've done. I just know some people wanted to filter the light on this beast and I did and wanted to pass along my experiences.

KidRed-

Those of us with this set appreciate your effort. I get frequent complaints from wifey about the brightness of this set (fewer since I changed the settings) so I'm watching this thread closely.

Unfortunately, I'm concerned about cracking open this set since my clumsy hands may not be able to get this mod done or get the set back together again.

You remove the heat issue by placing the filter after everything, BUT you have the high possibility that it will distort (somehow) the image.

I'm not convinced that putting ANY filter, glass or otherwise, wouldn't affect the image quality. Look at all the sets with CA issues.

There's absolutely no reason a good filter should distort the image. These filters are used by professionals. If they were altering the quality of color temp of the light, they wouldn't be used. I use one on my Canon digital camera, and it actually seems to reduce the CA inherent in the lense. I won't swear to that, but I'll guarantee it's not increasing the CA.

I make no scientific claims as to what this mod will do or the results including any damage that may or may no occur other then what I see on my set after the mod I've done. I just know some people wanted to filter the light on this beast and I did and wanted to pass along my experiences.

I just want to make it clear that we're not criticizing your effort here. I appreciate your imput greatly, as I'd actually given up on the idea of a filter a while ago. Now one seems quite possible. VB and I are just debating where and what type of filter would be best. Basically, you were the guinea pig, and now it's time to fine tune. I think I'm going to take the unit apart this next weeked to get a good look at it with your notes next to me, and make a final decision on what I'm going to do. Fortunately for me, I have a close friend who used to do a lot of photocopy repair work, so looking at the optics of this TV does scare him a bit. It's a good thing, as I'd probably chicken out.

There's absolutely no reason a good filter should distort the image. The key word here is "good".I just want to make it clear that we're not criticizing your effort here. I appreciate your imput greatly Dito.

If you look at these lens assemblies and read up on optics, I feel I would be surprised if even a GOOD filter doesn't do something other than dropping the light output. Now, maybe you just don't see it, which in your case is good, but it doesn't mean there isn't a drop in quality.

After my filter install the gray scale and gamma were slightly off. That was with the expensive Kodak Wratten gel. BUT, the ISF calibrator was able to fix those changes easily. He has verified, and I can agree, that there are no undesirable affects from the filter.

Btw, I just ordered 3 sheets of Lee ND filters in 0.6, 0.9 and 1.2. They were very inexpensive and I can cut them to whatever size I need. The ISF calibrator said he could compensate for any negative affects the filter may cause. So sounds like a cheap way to experiment. I imagine the 0.6 ND filter will do just fine as the 0.3 ND filter I currently have in my TV is not quite strong enough. I got the others due to a minimum order policy of $15....heheh.

Bitwize- So have you done the mod already or are you going to do it again? So you are going to try a .6? Will that be darker or lighter as far as blocking light? (still unclear on the density scale)

Also, how did your ISF guy compensate? I calibrated with Avia, but did he get into the service menu or something?

That's another thing us JVC owners need, someone to do the service menu and explain away the adjustments. I'm intimidated about getting into the SM.

video-A ND filter doesn't affect anything about the picture other then white light and colored light are transmitted through a ND filter with only the intensityof the light being affected. So colors stay the same and i verified that with Avia. Also, the PQ quality, edges, noise, etc all stay the same. There is no image quality change or distortion of any kind unless the filter is installed incorrectly-ie bowed, warped and creased, etc.

Bitwize; this is with the filter sitting on top of the final lens?someone to do the service menu and explain away the adjustments as soon as it's available I will do a thread on it. ;)A ND filter doesn't affect anything about the picture other then white light and colored light are transmitted through a ND filter with only the intensityof the light being affected I know what it does, my issue is anytime you pass light through a substance it will distort it somewhat. The question is if it can be seen or measured.unless the filter is installed incorrectly-ie bowed, warped and creased, etc I would be really concerned about the bowed part. That's why I would perfer to use a glass filter.

videobruce: yes, with the filter on top of the final lens.

kid red: already installed a Kodak 0.3 ND filter. now going to try the Lee 0.6 ND filter which is darker and will yield less light output. 0.3 is not enough with my 132 watt lamp.

Take a look here at the end of the thread;

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5817937#post5817937

NVboy is thinking about REMOVING his filter.............. :eek:

Well that is unfortunate for him. See my reply...

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=5817937#post5817937

Bitwize; this is with the filter sitting on top of the final lens? as soon as it's available I will do a thread on it. ;)

Well, I can give you a copy if you want to tackle it.


I know what it does, my issue is anytime you pass light through a substance it will distort it somewhat. The question is if it can be seen or measured.


I'm not sure how. The filter is flat, the lens is flat, so it's as tho the lens is factory tinted. Only light is affected, not the crispness, edges, focus, etc. You only effect light as this filter is grey (doesn't affect color) and it thin so it can't affect focus. And I can't see how being a single sheet it would have anything to do with CA since it's before the projector. I'm just feeding the projector a less bright light which is what everyone said would make this set perfect.



I would be really concerned about the bowed part. That's why I would perfer to use a glass filter.

Like I said, mine is flat and flush against the lens. There is zero bowing.

Bitwise- If the .6 is darker then what I have, I'd say that would be too dark for me. The JVC already loses a step in the dark grey scale area so a filter that was too dark would crush the last 1-2 dark grey steps even more. I just wanted a better black without costing much in the greyscale department. Maybe take some screens of the .3 filter and and the .6 afterwards to compare the differences?

Kid Red,

The 0.3 is not dark enough and this was verified by the ISF calibrator. The 132 watt lamp in my Sony is too bright for a 0.3. A 0.6 filter should do the trick. Also, have you had your set ISF calibrated? The calibrator greatly improved the gray scale and gamma on my set before and after the ND filter install. Even the expensive Kodak wratten filter slightly altered the grayscale and gamma, but was easily tweaked by the calibrator.

Btw...after the ND filter install and ISF calibration, I don't have any loss in the grayscale, no crushed blacks or whites, no change in resolution/clarity, etc. Sonys look amazing after an ISF calibration. They give the calibrator more flexibility/control in the service menu than most TV brands.

Bit- Ah, you have a Sony? Ok, that's why the confusion on my part. The .6 would be too dark I think for the JVC. The JVC loses the last or second to the last dark grey into black from what I've read. I don't know if ISF fixes that or what. But with the .3 you can slightly see that happening and I would not want to sacrifice shadow detail for deeper blacks.

I haven't had the set ISF-ed as I'm getting a replacement once the new 52" are released. I'll wait and see their PQ quality before determining if they need the mod as well. Then, if so, I'll do the mod (possible with a kodak filter) and then get Barry (?) to ISF it.

as soon as it's available I will do a thread on it. ;)

As soon as what is available?

Bit- Ah, you have a Sony? Ok, that's why the confusion on my part. The .6 would be too dark I think for the JVC. The JVC loses the last or second to the last dark grey into black from what I've read. I don't know if ISF fixes that or what. But with the .3 you can slightly see that happening and I would not want to sacrifice shadow detail for deeper blacks.

If I remember correctly, you also do quite a bit of watching with ambient light, right? I'd like to be able to watch the screen in complete darkness. There are so many indecisions about the filter for me. Bah!

Bluescale,
if you are watching in complete darkness then you will need a stronger filter, a 0.6 or 0.9. but i can't speak for the JVC before/after calibration. only know how my sony performs.

Bit- Ah, you have a Sony? Ok, that's why the confusion on my part. The .6 would be too dark I think for the JVC. The JVC loses the last or second to the last dark grey into black from what I've read. I don't know if ISF fixes that or what. But with the .3 you can slightly see that happening and I would not want to sacrifice shadow detail for deeper blacks.

I haven't had the set ISF-ed as I'm getting a replacement once the new 52" are released. I'll wait and see their PQ quality before determining if they need the mod as well. Then, if so, I'll do the mod (possible with a kodak filter) and then get Barry (?) to ISF it.


Kid,

I have used .6 on the Samsung DLP to take pre-calibration 117fl down to a post calibration 20fl for my clients with good light control and the desire to view the deepest possible black levels. You need to reset your brightness setting with a pluge pattern after installing a darker filter.

Let me know when you get the new JVC.

Barry- With the .3 I did not have to adjust brightness, I only needed to move picture up slightly to get brighter whites. Of course I am not trained or have any equipment, I've only calibrated with Avia and my eyes. But, now you know i was able to mod the JVC, and yes I intend to give you a call once I get the new model. Just don't know if I will mod it, then call, or what.

Oh, check the Tampa JVC thread, someone wanted an ISF- not sure if you'd want to drive that 2 hours or not, but figured I mention it to you.

Bluescale- Yes, we always have an ambient light on, usually the recessed lights really really low. Just enough to have that ambient glow without overly lighting the room. So the room is very dark, just not absolutely dark, which is bad for your eyes.

Okay, I went ahead and order some inexpensive Lee filters from the site that Kid Red linked to. I order a .15, .3 and .6. Once I've verified which filter works the best for me, I'll probably order a more expensive filter and put it in place permanently.

I think I'm going to first try the alternate location KR has suggested might work. If it does, this will make life very, very easy, especially if I want to try multiple filter, or if I need to remove a filter for a service call. The benefit of these lee filters is that they're cheap and come as a huge sheet. If I mess a couple up, it's no problem, as I can just cut more for the sheet. I should be able to get 4 or 5 filters out of one sheet with no problem.

blue- I don't think the plastic filters will work in the easier location because they may buckle. But by all means try it out, play around, just be careful.

blue- I don't think the plastic filters will work in the easier location because they may buckle. But by all means try it out, play around, just be careful.

So you think a glass one would have to be cut for that location?

So you think a glass one would have to be cut for that location?

Yea because the lens is a curving inward concave shape. So a plastic filter would have no support in the middle. Now, being creative, a circular shape could be cut out of a thin cardboard of sorts to act as a frame for the lens. Then that lens could be taped to the underside of the board frame. I just think a glass circular lens cut to size would be best for that location and maybe even in general. I just happened to have done mine where I did because i thought that was the only possible location. When I take delivery of my replacement 2nd gen 52", I may try for the glass filter option.

Yea because the lens is a curving inward concave shape. So a plastic filter would have no support in the middle. Now, being creative, a circular shape could be cut out of a thin cardboard of sorts to act as a frame for the lens. Then that lens could be taped to the underside of the board frame. I just think a glass circular lens cut to size would be best for that location and maybe even in general. I just happened to have done mine where I did because i thought that was the only possible location. When I take delivery of my replacement 2nd gen 52", I may try for the glass filter option.

I'm going to have a very creative friend helping me with this. Being an engineer myself, I'm hoping that the two of us can figure out some sort of a system for the easier location. Even if it involves making a caddy of sorts, while it would be more work up front, it could allow for easier swapping of filters to test black levels. If that location doesn't work with the gel filter, we'll go to the other location you've already modded succesfully.

Blue- Yea, you'll need a 'caddy' to prevent the filter from 1) moving, 2) buckling. A hard plastic, or firm cardboard, donut cut to size, slightly over 4" radius I think. Have some items such as that handy. Hard very thin board or plastic that can be easily cut and shaped to fit. Also, take some pics of the process if possible.

Blue- Yea, you'll need a 'caddy' to prevent the filter from 1) moving, 2) buckling. A hard plastic, or firm cardboard, donut cut to size, slightly over 4" radius I think. Have some items such as that handy. Hard very thin board or plastic that can be easily cut and shaped to fit. Also, take some pics of the process if possible.

I'll have the camera ready. Andrew (my friend) is a builder, and he's an amazing problem solver - a real life MacGyver of sorts. We'll see what sort of magic he can work.

Does anyone know what the light output of the lamp in the JVC is?

Well, USP messed up and routed my filter from California to KENTUCKY and now it's on it's way to Oregon. How idiotic. Anyway, my plans for playing with this over the weekend are shot, which is very disheartening. I don't know that I'll have any time during the week to mess with it, so the changes have probably been put off until next weekend.

I do have to give Film Tools a big thumbs up. I called UPS and they gave me a huge runaround with very little information. They basically said that stuff happens, live with it. I called Film Tools (who I ordered through) and talked to a really cool guy named Vince in shipping. He took may name and order number, and then called UPS on my behalf. 10 minutes later he called me back and said that he could either overnight a new set of filters to me for free, or he could refund my entire shipping cost. I selected the latter, since I didn't want to cost the folks at Film Tools any more than necessary.

Wow, that's unfortunate. It gives you more time to plan I guess :)

Hey guys,

I just wanted to chime in on the fact that I've also done this mod the same way Kid Red has done, with great success.

First off, I used .6 ND filter, same exact place. I find everything from shadow detail, to dark blacks to appear much more realistic and gives better depth perception. About black crush that some people may be worried about...I may not be as picky as the next man, but I notice no loss in dark grey detail. Of course, calibration with any greyscale pattern is a must, OR a professional ISF calibration is obviously recommended after the mod.

Kid helped me through the process, so much thanks goes to him. It really brings new life to the set. I would say if you're unsatisfied with the black level of your set currently, to give this mod a try.

In all fairness its a fairly easy mod to do. No more than 30 min depending on how good you are at working in a somewhat tight space. The placement is very interesting as it almost looks like those grooves were meant for a filter to go in there...lol. So really, I urge people with this set to try this mod aswell...it takes much less time to take the filter out if you aren't happy with the results.

If anyone has any questions, I'd be happy to help in any way I can, and I'm sure Kid Red would aswell. Just PM me.

So thanks to Kid Red, and all the others who have paved the way for RPTV modding. Truly bringing out the best these in these sets.

Peace

Remij; you see no loss of sharpness or CA (convergence if you perfer) anywhere especially in the corners? Have you had a cross hatch pattern (or full frame text) up on the screen to check?

Remij, Yea those grooves did look like they were meant for something don't they :) When I saw that I knew the mod would be easy. I'll have to order a few filters and see which one offers the best blacks without loss of dark greys and see which (.3, .6, etc) would offer the best greyscale. You should find an ISF local to you, I have Barry near me, so once I mod my new set he'll be able to calibrate it. Maybe he'll have some input on which filter may provide the best results.

Video- The filter won't affect the detail or CA. If it is wrongly applied I assume you'd have a gradual dark to light difference towards the edges, but nothing as far as CA or detail loss because we are simply stopping some of the light from entering the light engine and nothing more. Think of it as turning down the light just a tad, and the light engine still processes color, picture, etc in the same manner unaffected.

So of note, Remji used a .6 on the JVC and liked the results. Barry and Bitwise have used a .6 on a DLP and LCD and liked the results. I guess we can conclude a .6 for dark room watching, and a .3 for playing it safe with just a small step darker.

I just installed the 6x6 kodak 0.6 gel filter last night in my sony 55xs955 and it looks incredible! My ISF tech verfied the calibration after the filter install and agreed that the set produces a very nice film-like picture. Blacks are very black wth lights on, and are very theater-like with no lights in the room.

I'm honestly surprised how bright the TV is even with lights on and the 0.6 filter. This is due to the 132 watt lamp in the set. Btw, Lee filters do NOT work with this line of TV. I spent 4 hours trying to get several Lee filters to produce a good picture, to no avail. There were enough imperfections in the Lee filters to introduce ill effects in the picture. Also, a polyester filter with this tv produces a cloudier image.

There is a reason why the Kodak gel filters are expensive :p I got the 6x6 for $99 from Adorama.com and received it within a week of ordering.

The filter won't affect the detail or CA. If you look at the diagrams of CA, that tells me introducing another surface that the image would have to pass through would open the possibility of increased CA;

dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Chromatic_Aberrations_01.htm

If you look at the diagrams of CA, that tells me introducing another surface that the image would have to pass through would open the possibility of increased CA;

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Optical/Chromatic_Aberrations_01.htm

Link did not work for me. But anyway, that is true for photography, and you are talking about a 'possibility'.
For the same reason, I thought it strange at first that anyone would use an ND filter because in photography it is genrally used in specific situations. And yet, folks using it, like bitwize, etc. are having very good results over a range of images (expected in television), and a variation of ambient lighting.

The forum is blocking the address.
I modifyed the link. Just add 'www.'

FYI, with the kodak ND gel filters I needed only a slight ISF touch-up to fix any changes the filter caused. My friend is a VERY good ISF tech and uses hi-end gear for his calibrations. He was able to properly calibrate my Sony to ISF spec. Other ND filters may not be as suitable for this mod. I know Lee and Optiflex filters don't work well for the 55 or 60 XS televisions.

video- I couldn't get the link either, I got a page but it displayed a server error. Either way, I think you are misunderstanding the mod. We are only modding the light intake, and the brightness of the light before it hits the projector. We are not introducing anything but filtered light so therefore the only pitfall would be uneven filtered light where parts of the screen would be darker then others. However, my method puts the filter absolutely flush against a lens.

I know you seem concerned about CA or detail loss with this mod- there simply isn't any :)

Bitwise- $99 huh? No Lee approval? And you liked the .6 filter MUCH better then the .3? Interesting that you had what I currently have and went to the .6. Even tho a different set, results should be on a similar scale, no? I may have to go for a Kodak filter next time. I think my Lee is a polyester, tho I'm not sure as it's a unmarked sheet.

Kid Red: Yes, the 0.6 Kodak is much better for me than the 0.3 Kodak. And my TV has a 132 watt lamp. I'm assuming yours doesn't. In otherwords, a brighter set needs a stronger filter, hence the 0.6. And I do love the 0.6 :)

I think the JVC has the brightest bulb right? So I guess I'll be looking into the .6 Kodak gel filter. Thanks for sharing.

remji- Since you just did your mod, did you by chance get a notice at the final cut size of the filter? I've found Kodak 3x3 inch gel and wanted to make sure it was big enough and i can't remember the size.

Remij; you see no loss of sharpness or CA (convergence if you perfer) anywhere especially in the corners? Have you had a cross hatch pattern (or full frame text) up on the screen to check?

Hey videobruce,

Yea, no loss of sharpness or noticible increase in CA over the entire screen. I've ran my tv through every calibration DVD, every grayscale pattern and THX optimizer pattern I have with me, and its definetly uniform. I took extra care in making sure the filter is 100% flush with the lens. I would assume that a super thin filter would not affect CA like a thicker glass lens obviously would. It would be on a sub pixel level(guess)

Also, when I got my filter sheets, I took a look at the sheets and noticed that there were some inperfections/nicks and whatever else around the outside of the sheet, so I cut that BS off, and cut the most perfect piece I could. I actually never touched the filter once with my hand. All clean tools, plastic tweezers, tiny mirror with a light on the end of it...worked like a charm.


I just installed the 6x6 kodak 0.6 gel filter last night in my sony 55xs955 and it looks incredible! My ISF tech verfied the calibration after the filter install and agreed that the set produces a very nice film-like picture. Blacks are very black wth lights on, and are very theater-like with no lights in the room.

I'm honestly surprised how bright the TV is even with lights on and the 0.6 filter. This is due to the 132 watt lamp in the set. Btw, Lee filters do NOT work with this line of TV. I spent 4 hours trying to get several Lee filters to produce a good picture, to no avail. There were enough imperfections in the Lee filters to introduce ill effects in the picture. Also, a polyester filter with this tv produces a cloudier image.

There is a reason why the Kodak gel filters are expensive :p I got the 6x6 for $99 from Adorama.com and received it within a week of ordering.




FYI, with the kodak ND gel filters I needed only a slight ISF touch-up to fix any changes the filter caused. My friend is a VERY good ISF tech and uses hi-end gear for his calibrations. He was able to properly calibrate my Sony to ISF spec. Other ND filters may not be as suitable for this mod. I know Lee and Optiflex filters don't work well for the 55 or 60 XS televisions.


Bitwize,

Glad to hear you got your mod done with great results. Yea, of course the $99 kodak filters will more than likely be better. But as Kid Red has said...and myself attest to...is that a $6 Lee filter not only gives you a "cheap" idea of what to expect from modding these sets, it also gives you incredible performance. As with anything, it has to be done correctly. I could make a $99 kodak filter look worse than a $6 Lee filter if I got fingerprints and dust or whatever on it, and did a slack job.

Of course I can only speak of myself and my set. I'm not disputing that Lee filters dont provide the best picture in your set or to your eyes. So I'm really glad to hear that your kodak filter is giving you great results.



I think the thing here, is wether its $6 or $99, the improvements gained from doing these mods, is worth every penny spent. :cool:

--EDIT--

Kid Red,

I didn't get an exact measurement, but I can tell you that it was definetly not 3''x 3''. I'm not sure if the size of the set has anything to do with that though. I have the 52'', so if thats what you have, then 3''x 3'' filter would be big enough assuming you don't make too many errors on your cuts.


Peace

James

This may be a dumb question but I'm one of those people who is not very mechanically inclined. How much more would a calibrator charge for installing a neutral density filter to a D'ILA when he calibrates it?...calibration cost + lens cost + Installation?

Art- Calibration can cost between $250-$450 depending on what he or she does. Secondly, the filter mod would depend on the calibrator. As far as I am aware, only Remij and myself have modded the JVC. So unless a ISF guy has come into this thread and tested at home and happens to own a JVC, your ISF guy would have to print out our instructions and do them on the fly assuming you have a JVC.

remij- Yes I have the 52" as well. I thought 3x3 would be big enough, just wanted confirmation before I consider ordering a $50 Kodak filter. Bitwize ordered a 6x6 which was the reason for the $99 price. $50 isn't too bad I guess. I'll wait for my replacement set, once the damn 52" finally ship, and look forward to placing that order. Though, I hope JVC hasn't made any internal changes to the set, or the the area that we modded. Maybe I should check before I order? Or I'll just check their return policy.

remij- Yes I have the 52" as well. I thought 3x3 would be big enough, just wanted confirmation before I consider ordering a $50 Kodak filter. Bitwize ordered a 6x6 which was the reason for the $99 price. $50 isn't too bad I guess. I'll wait for my replacement set, once the damn 52" finally ship, and look forward to placing that order. Though, I hope JVC hasn't made any internal changes to the set, or the the area that we modded. Maybe I should check before I order? Or I'll just check their return policy.


Good question!


hmm, see..now you really have me wondering...

I hope for your sake that IF they did make changes to it, that it only makes it easier for you. :) I have a feeling it will be the same/similar though.

When you get this mod done using the kodak, you gotta let me know what its like. If you notice its much better, then I will cough up the dough for a kodak filter aswell.

Is there any chance that different wattage bulbs could one day be produced that aren't out now that would result in better picture quality? I guess what I'm really asking is the ultimate wattage filter combo for max performance. Will one of the current filters provide the maximum perofrmance or could you get even better performance if the wattage of the bulb was just a little different? Is there some computer person out there somewhere who could calculate what the best would be? Kid Red: do you think your current set up is about the best somebody could do?

Art,

Yea, a lower wattage bulb would yeild pretty much the same results. All we are doing is lowering the amount of light output. A lower watt bulb would not only be the easiest thing to implement for us, but it would also possibly increase life expentency of the bulb.

Chances of JVC releasing a lower watt bulb? 0%

Anyways..now that I've done the mod, I would rather do it like this even if there was a lower watt bulb... I can do this for $6-$100, whereas the new bulb would probably cost $250+

So if you want black blacks...well....atleast there IS a way to do it. Get your hands dirty! ;)

Peace
James

Okay, I have good news and bad news regarding modding this set.

The good news:

Kid Red's mod seems to work perfectly. Once you get a flashlight in the space and see the two brackets he's talking about, it takes about 10-15 minutes. I just finished it about half an hour ago, and watched a few minutes of video to see how it looked. So far so good. I'll give it a critical viewing later tonight to see if I can find any artifacts.

I dropped a .6 filter in there, and the blacks look awesome during the day. At night, however, I have a feeling it'll still be just a tad light. A .8 or .9 would probably be the best. I might try adding a .3 filter to my .6 just to see what happens, but I think I'd have a hard time getting the two pieces to fall in the spot properly.

The really good news is that this location should cause no heat disappation issues. I was originally worried about air flow being blocked, but it's a non-issue. The area that you drop the filter into is closed aside from the opening in the top. Because of that, there is absolutely nothing being blocked. One word of caution, though - the tiled piece Kid Red refers to that the filter is going in front of is an LCOS panel, I believe. If this is true, you DO NOT want to touch or scratch it. I was a bit worried about this, but it looks like everything went well.

Now the bad news:

It seems that putting the filter in front of the lense at the end of light path is impossible, at least with these Lee filters. Over the last two days I tried a variety of solutions, including some that people said would fail without a doubt (simply taping the filter above the lense), and others that involved more creative work (like creating a caddy out of cardboard), but I kept seeing curved rainbows along the sides of the screen. I assumed this was due to slight bowing in the filter, so today I had 2 square 4.5x4.5 pieces of glass cut at a local shop. I put the filter between these two glass pieces, taped the glass to the lense housing and put everything back together. Much to my surprise, the rainbows were still there.

At this point, there is absolutely no chance that the filter was buckling. There are plenty of imperfections on the in the Lee filters, so I thought this was the problem. However, the fact that this mod works just fine in Kid Reds location indicates to me that the problem is something else. My theory is this:

If you look at the lense housing, you have the lense, which is maybe 3" diameter circle. The lense, obviously is quite rounded. Then, above the lense you have large piece of plastic which is probably about 4.5" in diameter. If you take that piece of plastic out and look at it, you'll notice that it's curved in a wierd way. The underside of the plastic piece (in other words, the side that is closest to the lense) is slightly convex. The top side, however, curve's outward slightly, dips in just a touch, and then flattens out. You can't see this for the most part, but you can tell if you run your finger across it (warning - use clean cloth goves if you're going to handle this piece!). Both sides also flare out just a bit right around the edge, but that's beyond the area the light is going through, so I don't think it matters. On top of this strange shape, the piece of plastic is coated with some sort of material (maybe a UV coating?). I think between the curve and the coating, and the Lee filter, light is being reflected (or could it be refracted?), causing the curved green and purple rainbow type lines around the edges. If this is a case, it's possible that a better quality filter would mitigate the problem. I know umr has stated that some people have complained about Lee gel filters causing reflections. It just puzzles me that this wouldn't be an issue with the other location.

If anyone has an idea about the failed location, I'd love to see it (especially if umr is reading). That is still my preferred location. however, I do not want to spend $100 on a filter large enough to fit there, only to find that it does not work.

Anyway, hope this helps out...

remji- Since you just did your mod, did you by chance get a notice at the final cut size of the filter? I've found Kodak 3x3 inch gel and wanted to make sure it was big enough and i can't remember the size.

The 3x3 should be plenty big enough. I think my final cut was pretty close to 2x2, actually.

Art,

Yea, a lower wattage bulb would yeild pretty much the same results. All we are doing is lowering the amount of light output. A lower watt bulb would not only be the easiest thing to implement for us, but it would also possibly increase life expentency of the bulb.

Actually, implementing a lower wattage bulb in these existing sets would be rather difficult, as I understand it. I believe the power output to the bulb would have to be changed as well. I know if the mega thread about the LCOS tvs there was a discussion about it. I could be remembering incorrectly, but I think the consensus was that it would require a redesign of the inside, meaning it's something that would only work for a newly designed TV, and not for us.

Bluescale; really appreciate sharing your experiences here. That was a lot to type, and I learned a lot from it.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/cheers2.gif

Bluescale; really appreciate sharing your experiences here. That was a lot to type, and I learned a lot from it.

http://forums.corvetteforum.com/images/smilies/cheers2.gif

Glad I could help. The big thanks still goes to Kid Red for having the guts to do all this before anyone else. Without him, I definately wouldn't have dared to do any of this experimentation.

I kept seeing curved rainbows along the sides of the screen. I assumed this was due to slight bowing in the filter, so today I had 2 square 4.5x4.5 pieces of glass cut at a local shop. I put the filter between these two glass pieces, taped the glass to the lense housing and put everything back together. Much to my surprise, the rainbows were still there. That is what I have been saying along and what I am concerned about. You are introducing something in a optical path that isn't suppose to be there.

As far as a lower wattage 'lamp', how about a lower voltage supply?
I don't know how those lamps operate, but I assume they require a certain voltage and I also assume that lowering the voltage might not make a difference on light output and lowering it too far would cause it not to fire up at all which basically blows this idea.

Just easier to play around with the circuit, but the cost of the lamp assembly would cause one to think twice without additional info on the design of the lamp. :confused:

Thanks guys. I really want to do this mod. Unfortunately, I am a damn klutz so I have to wait until I get the nerve to open this baby up. I guess there is hope since I installed a new thermostat in my home without blowing it up.

bluescale- Good to hear! So we've got 3 mods so far. You think the .6 is still too light? The .3 produces pretty damn dark blacks at night, not black black, but pretty close. I'm actually a little surprised that the .6 isn't working enough for you. Man, you make me sad with my .3. Like I started the mod but now I'm old school and all of the new bucks are using .6 and .9 filters :)

video- The filter in the second spot may introduce issues and only because the filter would sit on a shallow cone with rounded corners, is does not in my spot however.

Hi,

After reading all the above mods, I have finally decided to do it as well. I just recieved my new replacement buld from JVC and I will do the mod soon. After looking for filters and reading the debate on Lee vs Koday. Since, I am not too good at working thin material. I thought I willstart with the middle ground. I ordered a sheet of the Optiplex Wratten filter. I believe the performance is as good as gels and they are stronger and less susceptible to dimples/scratches.

Thank to Kid Red and others for posting all the information. I will post my notes after I have done the mod and bulb replacement at the same time.

Vikram

PS: Link for Wratten filter

http://www.adorama.com/OFWFND60.html

good luck vikramms, post if you need any help, there are a few people that can offer help now :)

Man, you make me sad with my .3. Like I started the mod but now I'm old school and all of the new bucks are using .6 and .9 filters :)

LOL :cool:

That is what I have been saying along and what I am concerned about. You are introducing something in a optical path that isn't suppose to be there.

This is a definate problem in the first, and preferable location. Kid Red's location works flawlessly. However, since airflow isn't an issue in the second location (Kid Red's location), I'm not too concerned about it. The chamber is essentially closed on all side, with an opening on the top. No air is flowing from there to the bulb. The location of the filter itself is in front of the LCOS panel, and away from the opening. In other words, there is 0 effect on heat. As long as the filter holds up (and indications so far are good here), it's really not a dangerous location.

You are correct, however, that anything you put in the way of the light does degrade the quality of the final image. This is common knowledge amongst professional photographers. The question that you have to ask, however, is how much does the image degrade? Is it noticable? If the answer is yes, the filter is of poor quality, and it's time to purchase a better filter. These Lee filters are dirt cheap, and it shows at time. I see just a bit of shimmering from time to time. However, since I needed to experiment, it was worth it to go with the cheap filter. In a couple weeks I'll probably order a high quality filter (B&W makes great, consistant quality filters). It won't be cheap, but this isn't a $150 tv we're talking about.

I'm actually a little surprised that the .6 isn't working enough for you. Man, you make me sad with my .3. Like I started the mod but now I'm old school and all of the new bucks are using .6 and .9 filters :)

LOL...The .6 is working wonderfully, but it's not jet black. I'm concerned the .9 will be too dark. If I can find a .75 or a .8, I might go that route.

I'll probably pick up the .6 Kodak then. The 52" G models seems to be slowly creeping into stores so hopefully I'll get with JVC and Best Buy and start my replacement process. I'll probably pop the new one open, put it the .3 assuming it's the same guts, and then order the Kodak.

I decided to take a look at my filter installation today, and the piece is starting to warped and lighter in the middle. Kid Red, when was the last time you took your set apart and actually looked to see how the filter was holding up? If so, I can't for the life of me determine why my filter warped and discolored so quickly.

To anyone who has installed a wratten filter: will they hold up better than the Lee gel filters under heat?

piece is starting to warped and lighter in the middle. With the amount of light passing through that lens and the resulting heat, that doesn't surprise me at all. Anything placed there that doesn't do that other than glass would. Sorry for being a doubting thomas, but unless the filter was made specially for lighting spots/floods (which I doubt these are), I really can't see them holding up over a period of time. They might work for a few weeks or months, but down the road I really feel there will be problems.To anyone who has installed a wratten filter: will they hold up better than the Lee gel filters under heat? "Wratten" is not a manufacture as 'Lee' is.
I found this note from a Kodak listing; they should be handled only by the edges or in the corner to avoid damage. Please note that storage in humid environments can cause the filters to cloud and temperatures should not exceed 50°C for extended periods. I also found this;
http://www.fotoinfo.com/info/technicalinfo/gelfilters1.html

BlueScale- I posted a few pages back that i checked my filter after about 2 weeks and all was good. Are you sure you had yours flat against the glass lens? What brand filter did you use? I'll be checking mine soon I guess just to verify.

Video- Yes, you are a doubting Thomas, my filter is fine and it's been over a month so far. However, before I shove your repeated skepticism aside completely, I would have to visually verify my filter's status. I'm not sure I understand your continuing watching and almost waiting for something bad to happen.

my filter is fine and it's been over a month so far.Tell me that in a year and you win. I'm not sure I understand your continuing watching and almost waiting for something bad to happen.If something DOES happen and it damages the unit that you can't cover up and voids your warranty, will you still criticize me for being on the cautious side?

If for one minute you think I'm waiting for something bad to happen and give you a "I told you so", you are really wrong. This isn't a Sony thread.........................

video- But I don't see why there's even a prove it and you win debate. Do you own a JVC? It just seems that you are keeping tabs on the success or failure of this mod but don't sound like you have any intention of doing the mod but you want to point out that there may be CA, image distortion, etc. So it's just a little awkward I guess to keep seeing your 'doubting Thomas' posts, thats all. No ill will, just confused a little.

BlueScale- I know Remji did the mod also, tho I can't remember what filter he used. Maybe the Lee doesn't hold up as well as the Kodak? Ar you seeing any problems with the picture quality? I'll check mine in a few days to see any possible filter deterioration. Have the Sony folks using the Kodak filters reported any such warping problem? Is there mod further from the bulb?

Kid Red; check your PM's............

If for one minute you think I'm waiting for something bad to happen and give you a "I told you so", you are really wrong. This isn't a Sony thread.........................

Maybe you need to put that in perspective. There are more Sony threads than almost any other brand, including detailed ilnstructions with regards to the service menu. Naturally, all that info is also going to be countered with both more negative and positive feedback.
I suppose folks that are very familiar with the Sony threads are either owners, window shoppers, of just those waiting to prove a point. Of course, the same could be said of any brand, but probably on a smaller scale.

video- I received your PMs, I hit you back. No love lost :)

With the amount of light passing through that lens and the resulting heat, that doesn't surprise me at all.

Because of Kid Red's success, I was hopeful that it wouldn't warp. I'm not too surprised that it warped. After all, that is why I decided to check it out.

"Wratten" is not a manufacture as 'Lee' is.
http://www.fotoinfo.com/info/technicalinfo/gelfilters1.html

I know wratten is not a type of manufacturer. It's a type of filter which, if I'm not mistaken, is stronger and more durable than the Lee gels. If the Kodak filters can handle 50 degrees Celcius, that means 122 degrees Farenheit. That's pretty promising. I wish I had a way of measuring the temperature inside the chamber to verify if it's noth of 122 degrees.

BlueScale- I posted a few pages back that i checked my filter after about 2 weeks and all was good. Are you sure you had yours flat against the glass lens? What brand filter did you use? I'll be checking mine soon I guess just to verify.

I believe it was, but I'm curious why this would make a difference? When you say glass lense, are you talking about the tiled LCOS panel or the diagnol mirror? I had it in front of the LCOS panel, but I don't believe it was touching the panel. I would assume this would be a no-no, right?

As for the brand, I was using the Lee filters just like you. I orderd the large sheets from filmtools.com (the site you linked).[/QUOTE]

Mines absolutely fine so far...

but I gotta go, I'll post more tonight.

videoaddikt; the reference to Sony was in sarcasm. If you know me, I don't like Sony (putting it politely).

I believe it was, but I'm curious why this would make a difference? When you say glass lense, are you talking about the tiled LCOS panel or the diagnol mirror? I had it in front of the LCOS panel, but I don't believe it was touching the panel. I would assume this would be a no-no, right?

As for the brand, I was using the Lee filters just like you. I orderd the large sheets from filmtools.com (the site you linked).[/QUOTE]


Mine is absolutely flush against the tiled lens. My thinking is if it's not, then air can get between them and build up? However if against the glass lens, the thickness of it would somehow protect and keep it cool? I'm guessing, but might explain why you are seeing something that Remji and I haven't. Tho until I check, I don't want to dismiss anything and make all these claims. I just haven't seen any PQ deterioration and I had checked about 2 weeks after I did the mod and all was fine. How long has it been for you?

videoaddikt; the reference to Sony was in sarcasm. If you know me, I don't like Sony (putting it politely).

OK that's fine. Everybody has their own set of bones to pick, I'm only here to share experiences with regards to the filter. Something all sets with projection technology might benefit.

...<Snipped> I wish I had a way of measuring the temperature inside the chamber to verify if it's noth of 122 degrees.

Bluescale.

You can get an indoor/outdoor thermometer at a place like Radio Shack. It has a probe that you can place inside the set to measure the temp. Costs somewhere around $10 or less MSRP.

I've used one to measure temp of an overclocked CPU a few years back; so it'll work in tight spaces. :)

Hope this helps,

Ron

Bluescale.

You can get an indoor/outdoor thermometer at a place like Radio Shack. It has a probe that you can place inside the set to measure the temp. Costs somewhere around $10 or less MSRP.

I've used one to measure temp of an overclocked CPU a few years back; so it'll work in tight spaces. :)

Hope this helps,

Ron

The problem is, by the time I get the set apart, a decent amount of heat will have disappated (or at least that's my speculation).

The problem is, by the time I get the set apart, a decent amount of heat will have disappated (or at least that's my speculation).

The thermometer he is talking about also comes with a remote probe, that is used for reading outside temperatures while indoors. And the remote probe is on the end of about a 6 foot wire, so you could put the probe inside the set, but read the temps from the outside. But they are also not $10 or less like he said, and rather $30+ is more like it.

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F010%5F005%5F001%5F000&product%5Fid=63%2D1032

The thermometer he is talking about also comes with a remote probe, that is used for reading outside temperatures while indoors. And the remote probe is on the end of about a 6 foot wire, so you could put the probe inside the set, but read the temps from the outside. But they are also not $10 or less like he said, and rather $30+ is more like it.

http://www.radioshack.com/product.asp?catalog%5Fname=CTLG&category%5Fname=CTLG%5F010%5F005%5F001%5F000&product%5Fid=63%2D1032


I looked for the one I have that was for less cost. Evidently they don't have the cheapo that I bought anymore... :(

Ron

I've had a Kodak ND gel in my Panasonic for over a year now. I just pulled it the other day to check for damage. It looks brand new. No fading, warping, discoloration, etc.

Joe

The thermometer he is talking about also comes with a remote probe, that is used for reading outside temperatures while indoors. And the remote probe is on the end of about a 6 foot wire, so you could put the probe inside the set, but read the temps from the outside. But they are also not $10 or less like he said, and rather $30+ is more like it.RS is not the first place I would send someone. Try a K-Mart, Target or my least favorite; ChinaMart (some people call it WalMart). There are indoor/outdoor units for as low as $12 (I have 4 of them) and they are fairly accurate.

BUT, a far better route with many other uses is a IR thermometer;
http://www.electrical-contractor.net/The_Store/EX/IR201.htm

The real difference is you get a reading in less than a second, where the contact type will take minutes to stablelize and read. Besides, you don't have to worry about how you will keep the sensor from moving or falling off. :eek:

I have the pistol grip style which is easier to hold;
http://www.electrical-contractor.net/The_Store/EX/42530.htm

I have used it for locating hot spots when working on cars and with electronics. A real time saver and far more accurate that a contact type. HIghly recomended! :cool:

Hi,

It looks like all suppliers were back-ordered on those Wratten filters, but mine has finally shipped. So, I will have to wait till Tuesday night to get mine and try the mod.

I am worried to hear about the discoloration on the Lee filter, though it sounds like KR's setup is still stable. I hope the Wratten being a more durable material will survive. BTW, I ordered the Optiflex brand, 0.6ND, 3x3 filter. Will update soon.

Vikram

a far better route with many other uses is a IR thermometer;


I know all about IR thermometers, I have a few myself.
BUT, he was asking about a way to measure the internal temps with the TV all buttoned up as it normally would be in everyday use. And you are not going to do that with a "point & shoot" style IR thermometer.

You could do it with a wireless remote sensor. The problem is that they are battery powered. So you would have to replace the batteries eventually. But if you planned to open the set again to install a filter, etc., then you could just remove the sensor at that time.
It should give you a fairly good idea of the inside temp and can be continuously monitored. They typically update about every minute.

http://store.everythinghome.org/orsccafrthem.html

BUT, he was asking about a way to measure the internal temps with the TV all buttoned up as it normally would be in everyday use. And you are not going to do that with a "point & shoot" style IR thermometer.Leave the TV on for an hour or two. Open up the front (or rear) panel, take your readings. That should suffice for what/where you want.
As far as continuously monitoring the temp. (don't know why you would want/have to do that) a wired sensor is fine being routed around the edge of a cover of the set. Wireless really isn't needed, besides they only update every 5 minutes or so vs continuously with a wired one.

Leave the TV on for an hour or two. Open up the front (or rear) panel, take your readings. That should suffice for what/where you want.
As far as continuously monitoring the temp. (don't know why you would want/have to do that) a wired sensor is fine being routed around the edge of a cover of the set. Wireless really isn't needed, besides they only update every 5 minutes or so vs continuously with a wired one.

I agree, there is no reason to 'continuously' monitor the temperature, it is only a feature of using a wire or wireless. Having an update every few minutes is inconsequential, because the temp is likely to stay the same (it better!). Again, that's only a 'feature'.
By panel (and forgive me I dont have a JVC) are you referring to the area where you change out the projection lamp? Which is bound to be warmer than where the filter will be... I would think, on any projection display. Unless you have a small probe and move it several inches further into the display interior, and away from the lamp location, then I would agree, that should be very close to what a filter will see.

What if JVC installed the neutral densitiy filters on their upcoming models and had an ad campaign where they had Kid Red in a commercial and said they gladly consider recommendations of their customers? Would it make you more likely to buy JVC? It would me!

I have been monitoring the JVC D-ILA threads as well as this filter Mod thread for a few weeks and have gained an enormous amount of information from members posts. One of two concerns I have with my choosing to purchase the D-ILA is its described apparent brightness. My viewing environment is normally always dark or low ambient lighting. The filter modification described in this thread has given me some hope that I might be able to lower the light density such that the resulting picture can be calibrated more optimally. Since the 1080p D-ILA set I am planning to get won’t be released until September I thought it might be a good idea to ask JVC:

“Are there any plans with the 1080p sets to allow for a more liberal adjustment of the brightness? Or future plans to introduce such an adjustment/modification? “.

Unfortunately the response I received was less than enlightening.

“There are no plans to add any type of filter to the engine path, the unit is equipped with a TheaterPro setting for D6500K low light setting.”

I had also inquired regarding the possibility of the 1080p D-ILA being able to accept a 1080p input for those that might be considering external video processing, and the answer received back was:

“The 1080p sets will only accept a 1080i signal, my understanding is that this is the case with competitors 1080p models as well.”

What irritates me more than anything is the fact that the JVC D-ILA technology not only has the potential to be the superior choice vs current single chip LCD and DLP competitors, but also stands to lead the under ~$5k microdisplay market….. Why would they need the competition’s permission to inovate?????

Anyway, I still look forward to owning the 1080p D-ILA. I hope Kid Red and others tweak the filter selection to the perfect choice by September!

“Are there any plans with the 1080p sets to allow for a more liberal adjustment of the brightness? Or future plans to introduce such an adjustment/modification? “. Unfortunately the response I received was less than enlightening. “There are no plans to add any type of filter to the engine path, the unit is equipped with a TheaterPro setting for D6500K low light setting.” If they were to drop the light output, it wouldn't be done with a filter. Either a 2 position control for dropping the lamp output (as at least one other set has) or a lower wattage lamp.“The 1080p sets will only accept a 1080i signal, my understanding is that this is the case with competitors 1080p models as well.” What irritates me more than anything is the fact that the JVC D-ILA technology not only has the potential to be the superior choice vs current single chip LCD and DLP competitors, but also stands to lead the under ~$5k microdisplay market….. Why would they need the competition’s permission to inovate????? There has been many discussions in other threads on the 1080 i vs p input. I don't think anyone would need anyone elses permission to adopt 1080p.

Videobruce,

(Brightness Adjustment)
It’s unfortunate, as the response would lead me to believe they (JVC) don’t plan to do anything in the near future, and that the TheaterPro D6500k should be adequate to compensate for low light environments.

(1080p)
I meant that JVC’s specific response to my question (regarding the addition of a 1080p input on the new D-ILA sets) insinuated that it might be unreasonable to expect the new D-ILA’s to have an input capability that competitors hadn’t yet offered. My statement regarding “permission” was somewhat sarcastic.

I’ve been a passive observer to the forums to the point of my previous post. Artwood’s comment that JVC might “gladly consider recommendations of their customers”, together with the recent responses I had received from JVC frustrated me to the point of becoming a member so that I might contribute as to the likelihood of JVC considering user recommendations.

My intention was to compliment Artwood’s “What if” post as wishful thinking.

For all the jaded, cynical, been there and done that crowd, to the old sages, Industry Plants, and nice people who run this whole place: Miracles still happen! 1080p4me's kind words and decsion to become a member of the Forum had made even Artwood's eyes misty.

1080p4me: it is never wishful thinking to tell your dreams to others--on very rare occasions others can see your dreams through their eyes and also feel the magic. That is what Video is all about. To 1080p4me and other video afficianados out there who are members of this illustrious forum: Dream on!

Did I just come back from another planet and miss something completely? :confused:

Rotflmao!!!

What if JVC installed the neutral densitiy filters on their upcoming models and had an ad campaign where they had Kid Red in a commercial and said they gladly consider recommendations of their customers? Would it make you more likely to buy JVC? It would me!


Sure, I'd do a commercial for them. get in good with the brass and get on the list for one of those 1080p models :)

I haven't checked my filter yet, but i will soon as it look like the G series is about to hit my local stores. I want to take the filter out before returning this set and I'll check it then.

However, we watched quite a few DVDs and HD over the weekend and it look beautiful. So if there is damage, it's not affecting the picture quality.

Kid Red: from what you seen is there much choice in what strength of filter or have you found one that you think perfectly does the job? Is it possible that maybe a special filter with a strength in between those available now would yield optimum results?

artwood- I have the Lee wratten gel .3 ND filter. It's still holding strong as far as i can tell from the picture. Blacks are still black, and no noticeable edge issues or anything. I think tho, just going by common sense if the Kodak filters are better, more expensive, that they would provide a better result. Once I get my replacement G model, I'll open it up and do another .3 mod to it to verify the size and procedure. If all is well, I'll be ordering a .6 Kodak gel filter.

Kid, the sets are in my area, at least thr 56" is on display at BB.
They list the 52" as available for $100 less. The one I saw had no CA or purity issues that I could notice (without a test pattern) BUT, the time it takes to change inputs or channels is terrible. Between two and two and one half seconds. :mad:

video- No CA? You're the second person to say that, I'm excited. 2 things about the changing channels, was it the JVC's tuner or the store's feed? Changing inputs is about normal I guess, about 1 second maybe. Changing channels using my HD STB is about the same if not a fraction faster. They only had 1 set? I wouldn't be too concerned about this as I'm sure someone would have complained about 2 second pauses. Nice to see you looking at them tho :)

One of the first things I do (after I turn all the auto anything off) is turn the color level down to '0' and look for anything that isn't black, white or grey.

Changing inputs took at least 2 seconds! If ther is a blank input between two actice you can't press the input button twice to go to that input. They also took out the direct ibput feature. You now have to do one at a time.

They claimed they had some sort of outdoor antenna (believe it or not) and it was off air that I was looking at. Only 4 ATSC stations were programed into the tuner. It took the same two plus seconds to change channels! :mad:

BTW, as someone else mentioned, JVC added a 'theater' mode that darkens and softens the image. Maybe the are listening........... ;)

My 52" arrives tomorrow and I will be doing this mod after I see just how bright this set is in my living room.

Blue- Did you ever figure out why your filter failed so quickly?

My 52" arrives tomorrow and I will be doing this mod after I see just how bright this set is in my living room.

Blue- Did you ever figure out why your filter failed so quickly?

I have absolutely no idea. I'm going to try it again tonight, actually. I was just checking back on this thread to see if there were any new revelation about this modification.

Hopefully people are still checking this thread from time to time.

As everyone here knows, I performed Kid Red's filter mod a while ago with mixed results. The picture was awesome, but the filter degraded VERY quickly. When I checked on it about two weeks later, the filter was well on its way to melting. Needless to say, it wasn't acceptable to leave the it in place. Unfortunately, after just a short time with the ND filter mod, watching the JVC without it became painful. In fact, I found that I spent more time complaining about black levels than enjoying movies.

Last night I decided it was time to retry this modification. Kid Red mounted his filter flush against the LCOS panel, which I hadn't done, so I thought I would give this a try. It's only a couple mm difference in location, but his filter held up and mine fell apart, so it was worth a try. As anyone who has tried installing the filter to this location can attest - it's a royal pain in the ass. You've got a tiny opening to work with (much smaller than the filter itself) and it's hard to see what you're doing. On top of the that, the filter has to be cut to a very specific size, or it won't fit in the grooves that KR suggests using. I spent approximately 45 minutes trying to get the filter into place, and I just couldn't get the thing mounted correctly. If I got one side in the groove, the other would jut out. I'd try to get the other side aligned, and knock the first side out of place. Needless to say, I was getting really frustrated.

I decided there had to be a better way. Spending this much time on a location I wasn't sure would work didn't make sense. So I started looking for a way to remove the plastic housing around the area where this mod goes. Unfortunately, removing that housing would have required taking apart the entire light engine (or at least it looked that way to me). I was about to give up when inspiration hit me. If you recall my initial attempts at modifying this se, I originally tried mounting the filter on top of the lense, but the curve of the lense caused artifacts on the screen. So the thought struck me - what about right before the lense?

The lense is held into place by four screws. Once these screws are removed, the lense comes right out. When you slide the lense out there's an opening with a smallish piece of glass set a couple inches inside. The piece of glass is the last place the light from the blub passes through before it gets to the lense. The lense slides into the opening and rests flush against the piece of glass. This is the perfect location for a filter. The opening is round, perhaps 3 inches in diameter. The piece of glass is square and considerably smaller (maybe an inch). I cut a 2x2 piece of filter and placed it in the opening against the glass. It was large enough to cover the entire piece of glass. When you slide the lense back into place, it rests flush against the filter, holding it in place.

As long as this filter doesn't melt, this modification is exceptionally easy. I'll check it in a week or two to make sure that everything is still fine inside. I have a feeling the filter in this location will hold up pretty well, since it's at the end of the light path, rather than the beginning (which is the initial location KR tried). This places it far from the hot bulb. Considering KR was able to get this modification to work out so close to the bulb, I think this location will work like a charm.

Anyway, I'm attaching a couple crappy photos to show the area with the lense attached and the lense removed. Note that it's simply a matter of removing the four screws on the corners of the lense housing to slide the lense out.

Very good review.

Just how are we looking at each photo? From what direction?
You don't have a IR thermometer you could measure the temp of those surfaces (after it was turned off) do you?

Just be very careful about dust and especially lint and animal hair getting into that area. One of those air bulbs that are used for blowing off dist on lenes that photographers use might be handy to have around.

his first pic is of the optical drive pointing to the front of the set when installed, it would be right behind the blue led on the front by my guess, i could be wrong

Very good review.

Just how are we looking at each photo? From what direction?
You don't have a IR thermometer you could measure the temp of those surfaces (after it was turned off) do you?

Just be very careful about dust and especially lint and animal hair getting into that area. One of those air bulbs that are used for blowing off dist on lenes that photographers use might be handy to have around.

Tell you what...in another two weeks I'll take the whole thing apart to verify that the filter isn't degrading. At that time, I'll take a few more photos to show the interior more thoroughly.

As for the IR thermometer, no I do not have one. Besides, in the 5 minutes it takes to pull the tv apart, I'm sure a significant amount of heat would have dissipated.

And yes, I am blowing out dust etc from the area. When you have 5 cats, compressed air is a much used commodity.

his first pic is of the optical drive pointing to the front of the set when installed, it would be right behind the blue led on the front by my guess, i could be wrong

You're pretty close. For the sake of simplicty, let's just say the lense (or, as someone earlier in this thread described it the big eye) is on the north side of the device. The first photo is looking directly at the northmost end of the projection unit (i.e., further north, with the camera pointed south). The green HD-ILA device is directly south of the lense. Just a tiny bit north and to the west is the red device, and further north and to the east is the blue device. Light from all three of the devices converges at the point (further north and between the R and B devices) that my second photo was taken at. The light then passes through a small piece of glass and directly into the lense unit. My filter is between that piece of glass and the lense.

On the first page, Kid Red attached an image that I think might clarify all this a bit.

Well, bluescale, that's great news. Just 4 screws and the lens can be unattached?!?!? Consider yourselves lucky. I had my Z series switched out for the new G series and low and behold, they re-designed the ENTIRE LIGHT ENGINE! That corner area is now straight, the projector lens is different and there's absolutely no way to mod this set :(

That is, until i read this thread :) I may had to see if indeed the lens can be unscrewed as you did, otherwise it's near impossible to mod. This final location is perfect, will be no where near the heat.

One other thing I have learned, is that Polyester filters suck compared to gel wratten. So, if anyone really wants to do this mod, use the Kodak Gel Wratten.

I'll report back once I get another hour at night to spare with any news. This is a great find for everyone, especially the G series owners as it may not only be the best way to mod, but the only option for us. Great work!

One other thing I have learned, is that Polyester filters suck compared to gel wratten. So, if anyone really wants to do this mod, use the Kodak Gel Wratten.

Can you expound on this a bit? What makes them better? Do they hold up better?

I'll report back once I get another hour at night to spare with any news. This is a great find for everyone, especially the G series owners as it may not only be the best way to mod, but the only option for us. Great work!

Awesome. I'm glad I could help - especially since you're the person who motivated me to try in the first place.

Bluescale- Something I came across on a photography site when researching the filters recently -

Polyester is the poor man's solution to the fragility of the Gelatin filters. They usually come already mounted, are more resistant, but are optically inferior.

So, I think that's why umr used the kodak on his mod. I just went with Lee because i didn't want to spend $50 experiementing. If I know the mod works, I will use a Kodak wratten.

As for the mod, when you put the 2x2 filter in, you just let it rest there, or did it go inside? And the the lens back in place holds the filter? Any thoughts about picture quality/blacks after the mod? Better or worse then the first mod attempt? Did you use a .3 or a .6?

Glad I could help, and now you've taken the torch. Hopefully, I can keep it going with the G series because of your find :)

bluescale- YOU ROCK! I was able to access the same area on the G series to preform the mod! Awesome! I don't know if yours was easier or what, but after some work I was able to do the mod with a .2 Polyester filter. So, now that I know it can be done, I'll order the .6 wratten kodak filter. Awesome stuff, good find there!

Don't forget, more pics. ;)

Kid Red:

Do you think you'll get your set ISF'd after your filter mod? If so, I'd love to know if the ISF tech thinks there are any tradeoffs to this mod- other than some loss of brightness. It will be a few months before I get mine ISF'd, so I'll be tracking your progress & success.

Pioneers are wonderful. You can always spot them by the arrows in their back.

navychop-Yes, Barry an ISF member here lives local locally and will be calibrating after CEDIA. He actually has filter mods as part of his process. It's included in one of his packages, so I guess the answer would be yes. He frequents this forum and knew I would be modding the G series :) so maybe he'll chime in on that. AFAIK, brightness is only slightly effected, my settings aren't drastically different then before the mod. Of course, I'm only at .2 on the filter, when I go to my .5 Kodak, that may change. Still, this TV is too bright, it has tons of light output that can be filtered.

video- I forgot to take pics, I'll see if I can remember to after I get the Kodak gel filter which I ordered yesterday.

Thanks. Maybe ISF guys in NOVA will offer the same service options, when I get mine done (after I get a DISH 962 or such).

Don't know if this should be posted here or in the JVC 'G' thread, but here goes.
I took another look at this set in two different stores and I'm puzzled with the differences I see between this and other sets in the two stores.
First store this was setting next to a A10 and something else. The difference in brightness was substantial. Really bright. Now, before everyone tells me it's the other sets or the way they were tweaked, I went through and tweaked bothe sets, but was unable to tone down the JVC.
Now, for the issue. The 2nd store the JVC was next to a new Mits LCD and a new Toshiba DLP. After 'tweaking' the difference was very little. This time I set all three sets with the aid of my signal generator. The JVC was brighter, of course, but the difference was very little. Not even close to the first store.

I can't imagine it was that set itself, but what I'm thinking it might have something to do with the material. All stores use component, so it's not that. I have NO reason to believe the store 'rigged' the JVC to look bright since that is their 2nd bread and butter line (behind that 'other' name).
There was another JVC. This was a 56". I didn't really compare that one other than taking a quick look, but the difference seemed to be there also.

Don't know what to make of it. :confused:

video- Did you factor in maybe the A10 was set lower? or maybe the Mits and Toshiba were set too high? Even if you took Avia and calibrated the set in the store it wouldn't look as good as it would in your home. The feed is sliced and diced and in BB it's a loop, not actual HD feeds. The JVC will show any flaws from the signal, and can really only be judged at your home with your equipment.

You're killing me tho, haha, you need to just go out and buy the set from a store that also has your second choice. So, if you are unhappy you can return it for your other option.

Did you factor in maybe the A10 was set lower? or maybe the Mits and Toshiba were set too high? Yes and that is why I tweaked all the sets I looked at. I wouldn't even remotely consider coming to a conclusion before I tweaked them!
They have to be on a even playing field.You're killing me tho you don't know what it is doing to me!
I just don't wnat to buy one and return it for another. I don't want the hassle. At least the SG is paying off. I discovered issues that haven't been posted or reviewed before hand.

bluescale & kid red,

Does the new location provide for a perfectly FLAT filter mounting?

I would expect that placing the filter at this location would require as flat and taught a filter as possible so as not to introduce distortion into the post assembled image. Any chance of using glass? (Additional to or replacing what’s already there?)

Thanks

bluescale & kid red,

Does the new location provide for a perfectly FLAT filter mounting?

I would expect that placing the filter at this location would require as flat and taught a filter as possible so as not to introduce distortion into the post assembled image. Any chance of using glass? (Additional to or replacing what’s already there?)

Thanks

It is indeed perfectly flat, and, unlike a few of the locations I tried before finding this one, it is not working against gravity. The filter is mounted vertically rather than horizontally. The lense presses the piece of filter to the piece of glass and holds it directly into place. I'll take a few more photos in a week or two to try to show this more clearly.

As for using glass, I'm not sure if this would work. I'm not sure how much room there is between the lense and the piece of glass. I'm guessing it's next to nothing.You could experiment with replacing the piece of glass in there, but I'm not sure how it would all come apart. I'll take a closer look when I pull it apart to check on the filter and photograph.

bluescale- YOU ROCK! I was able to access the same area on the G series to preform the mod! Awesome! I don't know if yours was easier or what, but after some work I was able to do the mod with a .2 Polyester filter. So, now that I know it can be done, I'll order the .6 wratten kodak filter. Awesome stuff, good find there!

:D

Glad I could help any G series owners out there!

1080p4me- Yes, as Bluescale states, the filter is (mine is taped at the edges for security) and has the projector lens resting in front or against it. I taped mine down to make sure that it was flat and flush. The projector lens has a slot that fits over the filter and it's compartment. It's near perfect and took me about 10 minutes to cut to size and place. I should be getting my .5 Kodak filter today and look forward to the results.

So do we.

Wow. Near CRT blacks. I only went with a .5 filter, I wasn't brave enough to go to the .6. Wow, Underworld looked awesome! I now love this set completely (other then the noisy shadow areas). I can't wait till I have it calibrated next week.

Wow. Near CRT blacks. I only went with a .5 filter, I wasn't brave enough to go to the .6. Wow, Underworld looked awesome! I now love this set completely (other then the noisy shadow areas). I can't wait till I have it calibrated next week.

Your teasing us Kid Red!!!

Is there still a relatively good amount of room to move as far as brightness?

What do you contribute the noisy shadow areas to?

Some kind of Video compression from the source?

Or do you think it may be artifacts created by the video processor attempting to deinterlace and/or scale using some kind of motion/pattern algorithm.

Is it there with progressively sourced material? Or just interlaced source?

Keep in mind 1080p is only 3 more weeks/problems away :D

1080p4me- Honewstly, my settings didn't really change much after the mod, only the blacks got deeper. I assumed that I'd have to crank up both picture and brightness, picture is about the same and brightness is up maybe 1-2 notches. That's it.

I think the noisy areas were my settings mostly. I had brightness up, to allow for shadow detail and I think it then exposed the noise. Since the filter mod, I hardly notice the noise in shadow detail. Not sure what we the cause, just happy it's minimized now. It was on both HD and DVD, but isn't as noticeably on either now. I also had a cable replaced by the cable company, that may have helped also.

hey bluescale i really want to try this mod, but i need a better set of pics to navigate, also do you have to undo any of the cables that are attached to do it, when my engine got swapped the tech undid the cables attached to the chassis and some on the engine itself. i was just wondering if they had to to be removed and how hard they are to put back in the right place.

Kid Red & bluescale,

I had previously been told by a JVC Rep that : “the (D-ILA) unit is equipped with a TheaterPro setting for D6500K low light setting.

I found other JVC info re 6500k online:

[TheaterPro D6500K Color Temperature: This is the ideal color-temperature for viewing the television in a darkened room. Skin tones will look natural and the widest range of colors will be reproduced correctly.]

as well as:

[When the video editors convert films to DVD, or other video sources, the color temperature standard they use for their equipment is D6500K which is the equivalent or average color temperature of natural daylight. In transition to DVD, this color temperature can be lost but with our exclusive D6500K calibrating circuit, a press of the button can bring the original warm look and feel back to any video source]

My question is this:

Do either of you find the TheaterPro setting helpful or beneficial to improving Black Detail at all?

Do I necessarily want my black detail referenced from a Natural Daylight reference point?

Or does the TheaterPro D6500K have nothing, or little, to do with Black detail?

The environment my HD TV will be operating in 95% of the time will be Low Light to complete Dark.
I doubt that I would be satisfied with the JVC without the filter modification in my environment.

Kid Red, will your ISF calibration show the capability limits for the mod'd D-ILA to a point where it could indicate whether it would perform well in an environment like mine? What areas/settings/ranges would be most important?

Thanks
Roger

** Did you see the news! The new 1080p sets are being called the "DesignerPro" series that will include a new 3 Step Optical Iris system that improves black levels and gradation in dark scenes **

http://www.jvc.com/press/index.jsp?item=470&pageID=1

Guess they had to let it out before CEDIA, I wonder if they will surprise us with the 1080p inputs too??

hey bluescale i really want to try this mod, but i need a better set of pics to navigate, also do you have to undo any of the cables that are attached to do it, when my engine got swapped the tech undid the cables attached to the chassis and some on the engine itself. i was just wondering if they had to to be removed and how hard they are to put back in the right place.

Tell you what. I'll try this weekend to take it apart and photograph/annotate the entire process. What makes this tricky is that we have an 11 month old, and it's virtually impossible to do this while he's awake. I'll see what I can do for you. To answer your cable question, there are (I believe) three cables you have to disconnect. Reconnecting this is really obvious, as they are different sizes.

To be honest, taking the photos and then annotating them in photoshop will take more time and effort than aftually taking the set apart and putting it back together. It really is that easy.

Tell you what. I'll try this weekend to take it apart and photograph/annotate the entire process. What makes this tricky is that we have an 11 month old, and it's virtually impossible to do this while he's awake. I'll see what I can do for you. To answer your cable question, there are (I believe) three cables you have to disconnect. Reconnecting this is really obvious, as they are different sizes.

To be honest, taking the photos and then annotating them in photoshop will take more time and effort than aftually taking the set apart and putting it back together. It really is that easy.
that rocks,( understand 11month old) i pulled the panel off the back and saw the 3 plugs, you cant mess those up, and i got a few pics from my swap so i know where the screws are for the lens(big eye), just need a little more on placement and what to unhook from the engine or chassis, basically i need an idiots guide of which i would be happy to contribute as well. i document my mods all the time with yours and mine on the forum it would good for others to to have 2.

Okay, I've uploaded step by step photographs and descriptions to flickr. You can view them at:

Bluescale's Flickr page (http://www.flickr.com/photos/33214428@N00/sets/931838/)

For those of you who haven't used Flickr before, here are some basic tips:

I've named the photos step 1, step 2, etc... This will make it easy to tell exactly what order things are done in. When you click on one of the thumbnails, it'll show you the photo, but still at a reduced resolution. Below the photo title and above the photo will be an icon of a magnifying glass with the word "All Sizes" next to it. When you click on that, it'll let you select from several resolutions, all the way up to 1024x768. I've made all the images at all the resolutions available for download, in case those of you without a dedicated internet connection want to download and save the images for later viewing.

Each photo has a description displayed under it that explains what I did in that step. When you view the photos in their larger sizes, the description isn't visible. However, they have all been photoshopped (in quite a cheesy manner, I must admit) to include the same basic notes as what I put in the description. When you're viewing the large images, you won't be able to navigate to the next photo, so you'll need to go back to the previous page (either by using back in your browser or clicking the "Back to the Flickr photo page" link at the top or bottom of the page). From there, on the right hand side, there will be a thumbnail of the next photo with "next >" written underneath it. Click on that to move on to the next step. There are seven photos in all.

Sorry if these "How to use Flickr" instructions seem insultingly simple to some of you. Having done tech support work in the past, I've found that it's best to give the most detailed instructions possible so as to not frustrate people with less computer experience. After all, I have no idea how computer savvy you folks are :D

Oh Hell yeah Bluescale! the perfect idiots guide just right. do you have the service manual for the set? pm me your email if not. any thought on where to get and what kind of filter?I really appreciate your time on that. you have been modding your set and i have been modding my house. We have a nest of red wasps driving us nuts here. so i got the big idea to seal them in with that expanding foam insulation. step 1. bug bomb my attic. step 2, forget to open windows and gas the household :confused: . step 3, wasp get pissed :eek: . step 4, let them calm down. step 5, climb ladder right up to their lair. step 6, jump from ladder and run :( . step 7, look up wasp on google :cool: . step 8, google says wait until dark they will go to sleep. step 9, climb ladder again and fill lair entrance with foam.step 10, wait until morning and see what happens. :D

Oh Hell yeah Bluescale! the perfect idiots guide just right. do you have the service manual for the set? pm me your email if not. any thought on where to get and what kind of filter?

I do indeed have the service manual, but thanks for the offer. I wish the manual was a bit better written, but oh well...

As for where the get the filters, I was really happy with the service I got from www.filmtools.com. Kid Red and I both went for the inexpensive Lee filters (you can get large sheets that can be cut to size for $6 a sheet) to experiment with. If you're unsure what level of filter you want (i.e., .3, .6, .9 etc...) these are perfect for experimentation. I think Kid Red has moved on to the Kodak wratten filter, which is a considerably higher grade (and price) filter. That's where I'm going next. I'm going to give this a couple more weeks to make sure the filter continues to hold up. If it does, I'll be going with the Kodak.

Kid Red & bluescale,

I had previously been told by a JVC Rep that : “the (D-ILA) unit is equipped with a TheaterPro setting for D6500K low light setting.

I found other JVC info re 6500k online:

[TheaterPro D6500K Color Temperature: This is the ideal color-temperature for viewing the television in a darkened room. Skin tones will look natural and the widest range of colors will be reproduced correctly.]

<snip>

My question is this:

Do either of you find the TheaterPro setting helpful or beneficial to improving Black Detail at all?

Do I necessarily want my black detail referenced from a Natural Daylight reference point?

Or does the TheaterPro D6500K have nothing, or little, to do with Black detail?


I'm not exactly sure how I missed this the first time around. Sorry about the delay in answering, Roger.

D6500K has nothing to do with the brightness of the image. It refers to grayscale. To my eye (and I DO NOT claim to be an expert), the grayscale on my set at least is quite good using the TheaterPro setting. Grayscale is extremly important, as the accuracy of all your colors will be based on the grayscale. That said, your grayscale can be spot on, yet your black and white levels can still be all messed up.

This of TheaterPro (i.e., D6500k) as the starting point for all calibration. If you can get it ISF'd, the technician will be able to verify that TheaterPro is indeed at D6500K, and fix it if not. After you have the grayscale correct, all other calibrations can follow. Since I don't have the money to get this calibrated professionally right now, I'm assuming that TheaterPro is accurate.

Hope that answers your question.

ok, would you recommend .3,.6,or.9. and which kodak filters correspond to the lee numbers? thanks again bluescale and kid red, these sets really are a joy to own.

ok, would you recommend .3,.6,or.9. and which kodak filters correspond to the lee numbers? thanks again bluescale and kid red, these sets really are a joy to own.

ND filter measurements are standard across all filter manufacturers. Regardless of whether the filter is made by Lee, Kodak or B+W, a .3 is always 1 fstop, .6 is always 2 fstops and .9 is always 3 fstops. Each fstop reduces light output by half.

A .3 filter cuts the light output in half, which just isn't enough. This set is so bright that it needs a considerably stronger filter. When I first modded my set, I went with a .6 filter, and the black levels were inproved incredibly, but still looked a bit like dark gray. Last night when I took the set apart, I decided to add another .6 filter in front of the .6 already in place, effectively making a 1.2 filter. It only took about 5 minutes to figure out that that was way to dark. I couldn't get enough brightness out of the set. If my beer restricted math is correct, that allowed 1/16th of the total light output from the bulb. This set is bright, but not that bright.

So I took it all apart again and added a .3 filter in front of the .6, in essance making a .9 filter. I haven't watched enough to say which is better between the .6 and the .9. I have a feeling that .7 or .8 is the way to go, but these are harder to find. I did find this online reseller:

http://www.edmundoptics.com/onlinecatalog/DisplayProduct.cfm?productid=1327

Rid Red - Where did you get your filter from, and how much did it cost?

Hm...now I wonder if I'm going off the deep end with my filter here. In aother thread, umr suggested that a .3 or .4 ND filter would wor just fine for most sets. The Sony GW's aren't as bright as the JVC's, but I'm starting to wonder if I shouldn't go back to the .6, or possibly even try a .5. To my eye, however, the .6 still wasn't getting me the shadow detail I was looking for. Hm...

Shucks...I feel like I'm spamming this thread and talking to myself, but I've had more than one person call me nuts in the real world, so here goes...

I found this from a review of the 61" model:

Another thing I learned during the calibration process was the obscene amount of light output this TV was able to achieve. This makes TVs like this stand out in the showroom vs. others, but ultimately too much light causes fine details to get washed out. Without touching a thing, the TV was outputting an average of somewhere in the neighborhood of 150 foot lamberts, which is a measurement of light output for a display. The ISF standard is 30, so out of the box the HD61Z575 was about five times too bright.

Isn't this what the ND filter would effect? If so, for his set, a .7 filter would have been correct, since that allows 20% light transmission. He says later on that since he likes daylight viewing, he had his ISF tech reduce the light output to 50 foot lamberts. He doesn't say, however, how the tech did that? Was it by simply reducing brightness? If so, was that 150 measured with the brighness turned all the way up or right in the middle? Knwing a bit more detail here could really help in figuring out what is the best level of filter to get.

Also, an interestingthrough to keep in mind is that my set is 9" smaller, and, if I'm not mistaken, uses the same bulb. How d0es the same amount of wattage for 15% less screen space effect the light output. I'm assuming that it would increase the overall brightness, but I'm not sure. Is there anyone reading this thread who can help me with this?

Bluescale- Hey, have you had any issues with your filter? I know the Z series is most likely different, but I've had two failed attempts. The first one fell after 1 week, and removing it showed me it was buckled. I installed a second filter which after 1 1/2 weeks had buckled as well and distorted the picture. I just tried third attempt last night making sure the filter was flush whereas the first two attempts may not have been flush. I'm hoping that's the cause and not heat or something. But, following the trend, I should know in a little over a week.

I got my filter from B & H Photo, a .5 Kodak for $45 I think. In the review, the ISF guy most likely modded the set, tho I'm not sure how. Is that from a website, I'd email them and ask, honestly. I'm getting my set ISF-ed this week and the ISF guy normally includes a filter mod with his procedure. I've heard the bigger sets aren't as bright as the smaller sets, which would explain the same bulb.



darthrsg- I'd go with a Kodak .5 or .6 ND filter, more likely a .6. The procedure is a breeze.

-All the screws on the back
-take off cover, two screws on each end, screws on the silver plate
-take off plate, undo 4-5 plugs in the center
-slide black plate above the lens away top center
-slide light engine out and put it on the floor.
- see the main optical lens-undo those 4 screws
-inside you'll see the area to put the filter

That should be about it, I have the G series so I'm going from my memory, maybe bluescale can edit my instructions if applicable.

Bluescale- Hey, have you had any issues with your filter? I know the Z series is most likely different, but I've had two failed attempts. The first one fell after 1 week, and removing it showed me it was buckled. I installed a second filter which after 1 1/2 weeks had buckled as well and distorted the picture. I just tried third attempt last night making sure the filter was flush whereas the first two attempts may not have been flush. I'm hoping that's the cause and not heat or something. But, following the trend, I should know in a little over a week.

I have had no problems show up yet. When I took the set apart on Saturday, the filter was perfectly in tact. When you say you noticed buckling, was the filter discolored at all? That's what I noticed in your original location. Have you considered making a cardboard caddy for the filter? That would keep it rigid and keep it in place. If the filter is discoloring at all, however, the problem is heat, in which case you're out of luck, I guess.

When I was trying to figure this out last night, I IMd umr and asked him for his opinion. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is an ISF tech who's given a lot of people on this forum with advice regarding ND fiter mods and calibration in general. Here was his response:

Your post looks reasonable. I would choose a filter that fits your needs. Everyone has different room lighting. Don't forget your lamp will be at half its output when it is near its end of life. I tend to err on a little to bright at the beginning because of this, but you can choose what you like.

In other words, my point about the .7 or .8 doesn't seem like nuts, but it might be worthwhile to keep in mind that such a powerful filter will be overkill toward the end of the bulb life. For this reason I think I may go with a .6 when I finally install the Kodak filter.

I'm not exactly sure how I missed this the first time around. Sorry about the delay in answering, Roger.

D6500K has nothing to do with the brightness of the image. It refers to grayscale. To my eye (and I DO NOT claim to be an expert), the grayscale on my set at least is quite good using the TheaterPro setting. Grayscale is extremly important, as the accuracy of all your colors will be based on the grayscale. That said, your grayscale can be spot on, yet your black and white levels can still be all messed up.

This of TheaterPro (i.e., D6500k) as the starting point for all calibration. If you can get it ISF'd, the technician will be able to verify that TheaterPro is indeed at D6500K, and fix it if not. After you have the grayscale correct, all other calibrations can follow. Since I don't have the money to get this calibrated professionally right now, I'm assuming that TheaterPro is accurate.

Hope that answers your question.

Thanks bluescale for the response,

So in the event the Filter Mod works there should be no effect on the Grayscale of the set after applied?

Grayscale effecting all colors equally (?) it would just be a matter of adjusting the brightness to effect black levels?

Thanks bluescale for the response,

So in the event the Filter Mod works there should be no effect on the Grayscale of the set after applied?

Grayscale effecting all colors equally (?) it would just be a matter of adjusting the brightness to effect black levels?

Correct, although you will probably want to adjust both brightness and contrast.

Hey Bluescale

HOw is the filter holding up? Have you installed a Kodak filter yet?

THanks
P

Hey Bluescale

HOw is the filter holding up? Have you installed a Kodak filter yet?

THanks
P

I have not instaled the Kodak filter yet, or pulled the television apart again. Last week when I pulled it apart about two weeks after the initial mod, things still looked good. I think I want to give it another week to see how the filter holds up. If all is still good at that point, I'll probably spring for the higher cost Kodak filter.

K, I installed the Kodak filter and the last one Lee, was buckled. It was not discolored, it was simply buckled. I installed the .5 Kodak and after 1 week noticed half the picture tended to blur on the right side. Turns out the filter did not fall, but was buckled.

At this point I was nervous because I had an ISF tech coming and didn't want to calibrate a set with a filter that may not last. I'm not sure yet as it's been only 1 week, but the first two filters may not have laid exactly flat and the circular lens that presses against it may have caused the buckling. So this last attempt I paid attention that the filter did lay as flat as I could get it.

I had the set calibrated, whoooaaaa :) Nice deep clean blacks. Colors are amazing noiw, but the blacks are silky smooth. My greyscale is near perfect and color temp at 6500k. That with my filter give me an excellent picture. However, the tech suggested I go to .6 on the filter. I went .5 because I was a little nervous about it being too dark. So, I may order another Kodak at .6 and install that at some point.

So far it's all good. I highly recommend an ISF calibration to you modders, you'll get amazing results. Hopefully, my mod on the G series will hold.

kid red ,
are you using bluescales setup or your original? i have ordered the .3 , .6 , .9 lee filters in prep for this mod and was just curious which method you used.

Why can't we just turn down the Brightness with the TV picture controls? Won't that do the same thing as inserting a filture in the light path?

darthrsg- I'm using bluescale's method. Mine doesn't work in the new G series as they changed the light engine. I hope you ordered a Kodak gel wratten filter and not cheap polyester. I've concluded based on research and experience that the Kodak is better, tho more expensive.

crossrh- Reducing the brightness will only make the rest of the p-icture darker, it will not change the blacks to be blacker. You not get decent blacks because the black areas have too much light output in them. The filter reduces the light output making the blacks blacker and not reducing the overall brightness of the set because the bulb is that bright.

Hey Kid and BLue

Can you two comment on what type of tape you used to hold the filter in place if you did use tape.

Kid what shape did you cut the filter and what are it dimension in inches.

I am getting ready to do this mod, but I am waiting to have my engine replaced.

I already have a kodak .5 filter ready to go. Any insight would be appreciated.

Thanks
P

I used the sturdy clear packaging tape and cut very slim slices for opposite sides. The actual piece is like 1 1/2"x 2" or something tiny. I didn't measure it. You'll have to cut a small rectangle out and using tweezers, hold it in front of the lens to gauge where you need to trim. You'll see the approximately 1/4" of black plastic trim around the glass lens, that's your are to hold the filter in place. I had tape on the top and bottom, cutting the filter to slightly overlap all edges of the glass and let the tape just overlap the edge of the filter that will overlap the plastic. Then, wrapped the remaining amount of tape around the edge of the plastic trim.

The most important things are 1) no finger prints and 2) the filter MUST be flush against the glass lens. If not, it will buckle in a week and you'll have to re-do it (like myself)

Any other questions, let me know.

tools-
.6 Kodak ND filter (3"x3")
clear packing tape (not scotch)
2 pair of tweezers
flash light
scissors
30 - 60 minutes

Do not touch the filter or any of the lenses, that's why I used 2 pair of tweezers. If you do, you'll want to wipe any and everything off which will take a while and be tedious.

Kid Red:

Just ordered my 52G786 last night. It'll be a few days before the set is shipped, will probably get the materials and get it ready over the weekend. I saw where you stressed no finger prints on the lens or filter. So use surgical gloves probably when even handling or cutting the filter, right? What filter size is ideal, saw somewhere in the thread .5, .6 and even higher. This is my first mod on a tv set, so a lil skeptical but ready to try. Any other precautions?

Jonathan
Cali

jonathan- I didn't use gloves :) But, I took care not to touch anything, and used two pair of tweezers as my hands. I take shortcuts and did have to wipe fingerprints a few times which is why I'm suggesting to use them. I probably won't next time either, but I'm bullheadedly stubborn. So please use gloves or be prepared to wipe for a few minutes each time. If you use the tweezers like me to handle the filter without gloves, holding it tightly can crease it, rendering it useless.

The filter -
Kodak .6 ND filter is 3"x3" is about $50 at BHPhoto something

You'll end up cutting about a 1"x 1 1/" or so shape so you can get maybe 2-3 tries out of the 3"x3" in case you mess up.

You're doing the G which as far as I know, you'd be only the second person to do it. Most here have modded their Z series. The G is a little different. Just need a steady hand, some time, two tweezers, good eyes, flashlight, etc.

Is the Z series easier to mod than the G? Do you only need to use the tape for the G series, as I noticed Bluescale did not use tape on his mod (thought I couldn't find out if he was working on a Z or a G)?

I did not mod in bluescales location on my Z series. On my G series, there is no way to have the filter stay in place while putting the projection lens back into place. The tape holds it in place while you do. Without the tape, or if the tape is bowing the filter or not secured, the filter may fall or become warped.

Maybe bluescale can comment about the Z series mod.

Thanks Kid Red for your help. Will look for the filter this weekend. Set should arrive by Wedneday. Any VOID stickers on the set while openning the back. Wanna make sure if the lamp takes a crap I can still get a repalcement and not void the warranty.

Jonathan

Not that I recall.

Anyone have an update on how this mod is holding up?

Mine is fantastic.
Highly recommended.
Very easy to do.

Hi,

I finally got the mod done (after 3mos of my ND filter sitting around). I had ordered an Optiflex Wratten 0.6 ND filter in July.

I followed Bluescales instruction and things were smooth. I had to use some tape on the top to make my rectangular filter piece hang like a flap flush in front of the glass piece. After I put the assembly/TV back together I noticed that everything is out of focus including the GUI from my Comcast HD box and my upscaling DVD player. I have no idea what caused this.

I know most of you have been using gel filters but the wratten filter is about 1 mm thick and very brittle and needs to be cust with care. I am guessing the thickness of my wratten filter is making the lens assembly go out of focus.

Any help would be highly appreciated.

Thanks,

Vikram

Sounds as I wrote that. I don't think air flow is a issue here. I feel the 'gel' melting and sticking to surfaces on either side of where the filter would go. That's why I suggested glass, but Kid says it won't fit. As opposed to spending $6 and damaging the set........... :eek:

What I would do is try to take a temperature measurement with the aid of a IR thermometer (under $150) just after the unit was turned off so the light wouldn't affect the reading to see just how hot that area gets.
Hi guys,
I'm fairly new to this forum, so I apologize if I'm repeating things already covered. I've been thinking about ways to reduce the light output of the lamp, since I agree with others who think it would be better to do a modification before the actual image is generated (unlike using a filter after the lens). This may be the dumbest idea since Sony put those dumbo ear speakers on the new XBR1, but could you use a couple of layers of aluminum screen door material in front of the bulb to reduce light output? It's aluminum, so heat is not a problem, and the ventilation of the bulb shouldn't really be reduced. The screen material comes in a charcoal grey color, which I bet would not affect color temp much. Is there sufficient space to slide something like this in? It would be a dirt cheap mod, if it worked. Any thoughts? I've thought about putting some sort of optical iris in front of the bulb, but concerned that this may lead to heat build-up. On a related note, are people seeing any improvement in bulb life with these sets and newer bulbs?
Rick

I was kinda thinking about the same thing, some kind of material in the light path that would work like a half-open iris.
Has anyone performed the ND filter mod on a 61Zx86? If so, where did you put it and what type of filter did you use?
I'm seriously considering it now.

Thanks

Any updates on this?
I recently bought the HD-56GC87 (similar to HD-56G887) and I noticed the 'Black Crush' effect that everybody here seems to be trying to remedy.
It seems pretty risky to do this while the warranty is still in effect, however, after a year I would like to try this. Is the Kodak Filter necessary? I don't mind spending $90 or so on a filter although I would like it not to be a waste.

I guess what I'm asking for is before/after shots of some video output, perhaps a still-screen shot with no flash (preferably of high-def or even DVD material).

Anyone with this mod care to comment that they're still happy or now regret it?

I just thought of something really stupid. Don't laugh : why bother with a filter? The IRIS is just a silly piece of plastic with a variable sized hole, the hole being in the center. SO...for those of us who have either old model or cheap model TVs without an iris : cut a piece of CARDBOARD (or any other cheap crap lying around) to fit in the path coming off of the bulb, and put a circular hole in the middle! If it works, it would be the cheapest mod ever : basically, the same as installing a permanent fixed position iris...for the total cost of $0.

Actually, it all depends upon exact how the light path system works. Without a tv to disassemble, it's hard to say how they did it. But I THINK that optically the bulb is somehow treated like a point source.

Believe it or not, I think this idea might actually work. I found out why the neutral density filters eventually fail : UV light is leaking from the mercury vapor lamp used to generate the light. Only if the filter is a mirror away from the lamp would it be safe from being degraded. (because I don't think visible light mirrors reflect UV light very well)

An iris evidently must be in the exact center and be a circular hole to work well. Both could be created with a hole punch and a piece of heavy plastic or cardboard. Opaque glue would hole this ghetto iris in place.

hey guys , i plan on doing this nuetral density filter mod on my jvc 70fh96.
Those that have done this, are u using the filter with standard mode or theaterpro mode. thanx Chris , and how do u like the filter mod. Do u notice a diference? whats the best filter to use. .6 ?