Forget 4K-All I want is 1080P with no glare - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 2Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 201 Old 02-07-2014, 05:06 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

This is what Sony's OptiContrast panel uses:

It's been used on their high-end displays since 2010.

It may boost contrast but in the two screens above and behind him in the video the ceiling lights reflections are quite noticeable and well defined. That is what I am trying to avoid.

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 201 Old 02-07-2014, 05:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby View Post

It may boost contrast but in the two screens above and behind him in the video the ceiling lights reflections are quite noticeable and well defined. That is what I am trying to avoid.
That's under bright showroom conditions, and the reflections are significantly reduced with the OptiContrast panel.

It's not like a matte panel will eliminate reflections under those conditions either.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #93 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 07:34 AM
Newbie
 
ChaosCloud's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 10
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
+1 gloss hater! I will never buy a glossy screen!

My sister can't stand them either and regrets getting a laptop with a reflective screen due to the glare. She had used her laptop with a second lcd monitor (matte) and with both screens side by side under the same conditions the laptop screen is hardly readable due to reflections, whereas the monitor is fine. This is in a living room with large windows and direct sunlight on closed blinds.

Even glossy bezels/peripherals irritate me. Gloss finishes highlight every fingerprint and smudge and must be constantly wiped to look half-decent (my remote control, for instance).
ChaosCloud is offline  
post #94 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 08:02 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549

We are all talking past each other.

 

I think Chron's point is that if there is an AR technology built into the facing glass then it'll be better to have that glass be non-matte.

 

I (and I think most of us here, but can't speak for anyone), are saying that in real life, everything we've seen that shows a glossy surface reflection is absolutely horrendous when compared to something showing a matte reflection.

 

No amount of theory nor pictures are going to change my real life experience with a myriad of monitors and TVs over my lifetime.  I absolutely loathe sharply defined reflections because they compete with the drawn objects for recognition and attention.  There's no getting past that.  Period, end of chapter, end of story, close the book.  If a TV has AR technology then so be it, and I'll be the first to say that it's among the most important technologies of any TV coming up.  In fact at this point in time I believe it to be more important than CR, resolution, and everything else other than HFR (and blur control).

 

But you will not be able to convince me that my matte screens would be better if glossy.  I've just got too much experience being tormented by specular reflection.

 

 


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #95 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 10:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosCloud View Post

My sister can't stand them either and regrets getting a laptop with a reflective screen due to the glare. She had used her laptop with a second lcd monitor (matte) and with both screens side by side under the same conditions the laptop screen is hardly readable due to reflections, whereas the monitor is fine.
Monitors are often twice the brightness of laptop displays. This is not comparing like-for-like.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChaosCloud View Post

Even glossy bezels/peripherals irritate me. Gloss finishes highlight every fingerprint and smudge and must be constantly wiped to look half-decent (my remote control, for instance).
Anything you touch should be oleophobic-coated glass or have a matte finish. I agree that it's a horrible idea to use glossy plastic for things like remote controls.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I think Chron's point is that if there is an AR technology built into the facing glass then it'll be better to have that glass be non-matte.
Exactly. It minimizes the affected area of the screen, and mutes the reflection. It also puts the reflection at a different depth to the surface of the display.
With matte screens you cannot do anything other than hope diffusion will dim the reflection (it does very little) and what is reflected, is diffused over the surface, covering up everything below it.

I happened to be looking up reviews of Lenovo's Thinkpad X1 carbon and saw this comparison:
s5Xrlfc.jpg

To be clear, I do not consider the MacBook Air to be a good glossy display - at least not the ones I've seen. This appears to have some sort of AR coating (I'm guessing due to the tint of the reflection) so perhaps the newer ones are better than the ones I've seen.
Even then it is clearly better at handling the overhead fluorescent lights than the matte Thinkpad display. The reflection is a lot brighter on the Thinkpad screen (because relying on diffusion doesn't do much) and because the reflection is diffused on the surface of the display, you cannot see anything underneath the affected area - it's pure white.
And if you look at the brightness of the image in the unaffected areas, it would appear that the Thinkpad display is actually brighter than the MacBook one, but despite that it still does a much worse job of handling the overhead lights.

If you had a glossy MacBook display in those lighting conditions, you might say how much you hate its display because of the overhead light - but it's only when you actually compare it to a matte display under the same conditions you see that not only is it no better - it's actually worse.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I (and I think most of us here, but can't speak for anyone), are saying that in real life, everything we've seen that shows a glossy surface reflection is absolutely horrendous when compared to something showing a matte reflection.
But I think few people have actually compared quality screens of both types, under equal conditions. (i.e. both are set to the exact same brightness)
They use a glossy display, hate the experience and assume that a matte display must be better. But under equal conditions, a matte display is unlikely to be any better.

Most of the time when reflections are a problem, the issue is due to the positioning of the screen, and its brightness. Switching from a glossy screen to a matte one won't fix either of those problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I absolutely loathe sharply defined reflections because they compete with the drawn objects for recognition and attention.  There's no getting past that.  Period, end of chapter, end of story, close the book.
But those reflections are on a different plane of focus from the image on the display.

If I focus on a reflection behind me, I cannot read any of the text on the screen because my eyes are focused 15ft away. The reverse is also true - I don't notice the reflections because they are muted by the AR coating, and out of focus when I am looking at text.
On a matte display, the reflections are on the surface of the display and cannot be ignored.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #96 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 11:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

But those reflections are on a different plane of focus from the image on the display.

If I focus on a reflection behind me, I cannot read any of the text on the screen because my eyes are focused 15ft away. The reverse is also true - I don't notice the reflections because they are muted by the AR coating, and out of focus when I am looking at text.
On a matte display, the reflections are on the surface of the display and cannot be ignored.

 

But you see anything on a screen and you instinctively try to focus it, no?  At which point you've immediately lost the image data into a blur.

 

Bottom line, the matte is still far better to me IRL situations.

 

Don't know what to say other than "agree to disagree".  As I'm typing this I'm thinking back to example after example.  For instance: I repair PCs for free, so I've often had my relatively ancient 2006 Dell Inspiron 6000 laptop with its heavily matted screen right next to one of the newer mirror style notebooks I was repairing.  If I'm wearing a white shirt, their display is miserable for me to look at.  Mine won't be ideal, but it'll be dramatically less painful to use.

 

Whatever.  To each his own I guess.


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #97 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 11:50 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

But you see anything on a screen and you instinctively try to focus it, no?  At which point you've immediately lost the image data into a blur.
No - I'm focused on the screen, not the objects behind me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've often had my relatively ancient 2006 Dell Inspiron 6000 laptop with its heavily matted screen right next to one of the newer mirror style notebooks I was repairing.  If I'm wearing a white shirt, their display is miserable for me to look at.  Mine won't be ideal, but it'll be dramatically less painful to use.
Right - so this will be an older notebook likely with a CCFL backlight, that is easily overpowered by even normal room lighting. (probably about 100 nits by now) Most of the screen illumination is from the ambient light rather than the backlight.

I've said it before - when the backlight is totally overpowered, a matte screen is often preferable. Televisions don't have that same problem, with many of the new 2014 models claiming 800 nits brightness.


Obviously we won't ever be able to agree, but as someone that has done the comparisons under relatively controlled conditions. (backlight brightness being the same etc.) I was surprised to find that I prefer the good glossy displays to matte ones in most situations.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #98 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 12:04 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

when the backlight is totally overpowered, a matte screen is often preferable. Televisions don't have that same problem, with many of the new 2014 models claiming 800 nits brightness.

 

If the entire TV screen were blasting out white, then sure.  But much of a TV screen is subdued (or black) in common viewing.  Doesn't matter about the brightness of the screen at all then.  Those spots will have anything in the room show up.

 

Also, even with a super bright laptop: As you've said in the past, you prefer to have white or light colored text on a black background.  There's almost no light coming out of that black.  That moots the point of the backlight outweighing the ambient, no?


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #99 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 12:48 PM
Member
 
noworthen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
I don't doubt that a high quality glossy screen can look better than a mat screen under some conditions. The problem is that most glossy screens are NOT high quality and you have to pay up to get those that are. A cheapish mat screen will perform better under normal viewing conditions than a glossy screen in that price range. Which is why mat screens should be available in the lower price ranges (at least). The only advantage to having these type of glossy panels is that I can brush my hair or shave while watching TV. smile.gif

The pictures that I've seen that compare the two are taken at an angle and the panels are reflecting lighting on a direct angle to the camera. These are not normal viewing conditions. Quite frankly, they both look terrible under such conditions. Comparing which looks less terrible under unviewable conditions is mute because nobody would be viewing at such angles anyway.
gus738 likes this.
noworthen is offline  
post #100 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 12:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post


I've said it before - when the backlight is totally overpowered, a matte screen is often preferable. Televisions don't have that same problem, with many of the new 2014 models claiming 800 nits brightness.

Chronoptimist, aside from the Vizio Reference Series, what other 2014 TV Models are claiming 800 nit brightness???

-fafrd
fafrd is offline  
post #101 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 01:50 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post

Chronoptimist, aside from the Vizio Reference Series, what other 2014 TV Models are claiming 800 nit brightness???
Sony have a couple of models, and I think Sharp do as well. (Sharp have had 800 nit panels on the professional market for years)
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #102 of 201 Old 02-08-2014, 02:56 PM
AVS Special Member
 
fafrd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,552
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 14 Post(s)
Liked: 287
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by fafrd View Post

Chronoptimist, aside from the Vizio Reference Series, what other 2014 TV Models are claiming 800 nit brightness???
Sony have a couple of models, and I think Sharp do as well. (Sharp have had 800 nit panels on the professional market for years)

OK, thanks. But did you see any other LED/LCDs for the consumer TV market announced at CES 2014 (or elsewhere) that have an 800 nit backlight? I only saw Vizio tout this spec for their Reference Series, which is why I am asking.

-fafrd
fafrd is offline  
post #103 of 201 Old 02-09-2014, 02:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Mike99's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,965
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 40
+1 for hating glossy bezels also.

I bought a 2012 model TV last year when the 2013 models just came out. They were essentially the same price. But the 2013 version had a more glossy bezel.

And some TVs have a chrome bezel. Why do they do that? No movie theater screen I've ever seen has got a chrome or similar border.

In fact a salesperson at a big box store said he has to turn off his ceiling fan because it bounces light onto the TV bezel & the rotating blades make it look like flashing strobe effect & was very distracting.

I remember years ago with CRT monitors a lot of people at work wanted to sit by the window. But then sunlight was creating reflections on the glossy glass CRT making it difficult to use. So they had to use a matte filter or screen to hang on their monitor in order to kill the reflections.
Mike99 is offline  
post #104 of 201 Old 02-12-2014, 09:03 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 24
i agree most matte screens are a no go for usa . but also you cant complain so much , where were we 10 or 20 years ago? with crt tubes. ...

cover your blinds with dark blinds /covers so that your tv viewing expereince will be better. 2nd buy a plasma . myself i bought the 60 inch samsung plasma . f5350 . the f 5 series. i got it under $8xx .

samsung claims the warehouse version has a anti reflective filter where as the regular 5 series do not .

Pioneer Elite PRO-111
Samsung 60PnF5300 af
panasonic px75u

XBL x117x831
PS4 gusx831
gus738 is offline  
post #105 of 201 Old 02-12-2014, 10:12 AM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by gus738 View Post

i agree most matte screens are a no go for usa . but also you cant complain so much , where were we 10 or 20 years ago? with crt tubes. ...

The problem is, six or seven years ago consumers had a choice. LCD without glare or Plasma with its vaunted picture quality and glare. Now the options are LCD with glare and Plasma with glare. So, if you are a glare hater, you can complain.

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
post #106 of 201 Old 02-12-2014, 10:33 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by sytech View Post

Sharp had a few sets with Motheye anti reflective screen over in Japan, with their xl9 series and their 4K model, but they removed it for their the US models. It looked promising, but maybe to costly for US market?


Too costly for the richest country on Earth?
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #107 of 201 Old 02-12-2014, 10:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
gus738's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Watsonville, CA
Posts: 2,771
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 10 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maltby View Post

The problem is, six or seven years ago consumers had a choice. LCD without glare or Plasma with its vaunted picture quality and glare. Now the options are LCD with glare and Plasma with glare. So, if you are a glare hater, you can complain.

trust me i HATE glare however i learn to adjust or darken the room thus minimizing or or completely remove glare .

if you want to have a bright environment then get used to glare will always be there no matter the technology.

Pioneer Elite PRO-111
Samsung 60PnF5300 af
panasonic px75u

XBL x117x831
PS4 gusx831
gus738 is offline  
post #108 of 201 Old 02-12-2014, 05:57 PM - Thread Starter
Advanced Member
 
Maltby's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Seattle
Posts: 682
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 13 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by gus738 View Post

trust me i HATE glare however i learn to adjust or darken the room thus minimizing or or completely remove glare .

if you want to have a bright environment then get used to glare will always be there no matter the technology.

I have an older LCD and there is no glare, bright environment or not. There is also new technology that gets rid of the glare (see motheye above)

The films of De Sica, of Welles, of Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger made little money and endure as spiritual delights.
--David Mamet
Maltby is offline  
post #109 of 201 Old 02-12-2014, 09:34 PM
"Don't PM Me Bro"
 
RandyWalters's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: El Segundo, Calif
Posts: 17,381
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 31 Post(s)
Liked: 428
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

Too costly for the richest country on Earth?

The US is not the richest country on earth by any means. but we're in the top ten wink.gif
gus738 likes this.

Randy
TC-P55ST60, TC-P50GT50, TC-P46G10, TH-42PZ700U, TH-42PX50U, HP LC2600N, TiVo Series3, TWC Cisco 8742HDC DVR, Onkyo TX-SR605, URC R40 Remote.
Pic of My A/V setup - http://cdn.avsforum.com/f/f1/900x900..._Img_4867.jpeg
Gallery - http://www.avsforum.com/g/a/2082686/randywalter...
RandyWalters is offline  
post #110 of 201 Old 02-12-2014, 11:16 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
rogo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Sequoia, CA
Posts: 30,052
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 17 Post(s)
Liked: 369
Here's the CIA data (from their world fact book on richest countries)....
Code:
1        Qatar                 103,900 2012 est.
2        Liechtenstein          89,400  2009 est.
—        Bermuda                86,000  2011 est.
—        Macau                  82,400  2011 est.
3        Luxembourg             81,100  2012 est.
4        Monaco                 70,700  2011
5        Singapore              61,400  2012 est.
—        Jersey                 57,000  2005 est.
6        Norway                 55,900  2012 est.
—        Falkland Islands       55,400  2002 est.
7        Brunei                 55,300  2012 est.
—        Isle of Man            53,800  2007 est.
—        Hong Kong              52,300  2012 est.
8        United States          50,700  2012 est


Macau, Jersey, the Falklands, Hong Kong, Isle of Man are not countries in any conventional sense. Bermuda, Luxemboug, Monaco, Singapore and Brunei are barely countries.

That seems to leave the U.S. third in per capital GDP between Qatar and Norway,

In nominal GDP, the U.S. is clearly and easily first.

There is no difference in HDMI cables. If you can see the picture without visible dropouts or sparklies, the cable is working at 100%. No other cable will display a better version of that picture. You're simply wrong if you think there is a better digital cable than one that is already working.
rogo is offline  
post #111 of 201 Old 02-13-2014, 06:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Frankly, this seems irrelevant. The US display market (actually, all the electronics market) is focused on low prices.
Electronics are significantly cheaper in the US than just about anywhere else in the world, and prices keep being driven lower by market demands.

This is why high-end companies like Pioneer went out of business - no-one wants to pay for premium displays in the US. They want big, and they want cheap.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #112 of 201 Old 02-13-2014, 06:50 AM
Senior Member
 
pdoherty972's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 253
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 16
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyWalters View Post

The US is not the richest country on earth by any means. but we're in the top ten wink.gif

OK - #6 on this list.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-richest-countries-map.html

So I reiterate my question...
pdoherty972 is offline  
post #113 of 201 Old 02-16-2014, 12:31 PM
Member
 
noworthen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 46
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 15
Quote:
Originally Posted by pdoherty972 View Post

OK - #6 on this list.

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top-ten/world-top-ten-richest-countries-map.html

So I reiterate my question...
The price people are willing to pay for TV's (or most other items) isn't determined by per capita GDP. It's determined by disposable income. Since most of the earnings go to the top 10% of earners it means that there is not as much disposable income for the other 90% as one might assume. And the small percentage of higher end earners can only buy so many TV's. I would guess that the majority of TV's are sold within some range of the median disposable income and that range might be quite a bit lower than what the cost of motheye would justify.
noworthen is offline  
post #114 of 201 Old 03-21-2014, 08:34 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Liked: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Frankly, the only thing that mystifies me about that aftermarket product is that you can succeed in getting the air bubbles out.
It shouldn't be that hard. People tint large windows and don't leave bubbles. You start at the center and work your way out with a soft squeegee.
Stereodude is online now  
post #115 of 201 Old 03-21-2014, 09:08 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stereodude View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Frankly, the only thing that mystifies me about that aftermarket product is that you can succeed in getting the air bubbles out.
It shouldn't be that hard. People tint large windows and don't leave bubbles. You start at the center and work your way out with a soft squeegee.

 

I've seen bubbles in home-done car windows tints all the time.

 

I've had trouble keeping bubbles out of cell phone protectors.


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #116 of 201 Old 03-21-2014, 11:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Stereodude's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Detroit Metro Area
Posts: 9,599
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 288 Post(s)
Liked: 376
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've seen bubbles in home-done car windows tints all the time.

I've had trouble keeping bubbles out of cell phone protectors.
If you use a slip solution it's not too hard to install a film without any bubbles on a flat surface. I've messed around with it before. However, using a slip solution on the front of a large LCD TV may not be something you want to do because you don't want the liquid getting into the set. It's certainly not for the faint of heart. At least matte screens have become more prevalent in monitors and laptops again. Unfortunately we're not to the same point yet on TVs.
Stereodude is online now  
post #117 of 201 Old 03-21-2014, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I've seen bubbles in home-done car windows tints all the time.
I've had trouble keeping bubbles out of cell phone protectors.
If you do it correctly, there should be no problem avoiding bubbles on something as large as a television. I've done it a number of times applying different films to windows. (privacy films, "solar" films to reduce the amount of light coming in, blackout films for my projector room)
The problem is that you have to get the surface and the film soaking wet in order to properly smooth it out without it adhering to the glass, and I would be somewhat concerned about doing that with a television. Perhaps it would not be too bad with displays which have a single sheet of glass over the front.

If you are simply trying to lay an adhesive-backed film on the display and get it right first time without any bubbles or dust getting under it - good luck!
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #118 of 201 Old 03-21-2014, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 5,811
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 89 Post(s)
Liked: 549
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

The problem is that you have to get the surface and the film soaking wet in order to properly smooth it out without it adhering to the glass, and I would be somewhat concerned about doing that with a television. Perhaps it would not be too bad with displays which have a single sheet of glass over the front.

 

Yeah, no way (for that type of film).  Here's what happened to an 40EX600 that had water drip down and seep under the bezel.

 


Well Vinnie97, one of the kindest and most helpful and respected members here, got one of these. I wonder how much longer before I get such a message...
You have been banned for the following reason: No reason was specified.
Date the ban will be lifted: Never
tgm1024 is offline  
post #119 of 201 Old 03-21-2014, 02:01 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,557
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 202
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

Yeah, no way (for that type of film).  Here's what happened to an 40EX600 that had water drip down and seep under the bezel.
Well that has a separate display panel and bezel unlike the displays which have a single pane of glass over the front. However, I wouldn't want to risk it with one of those displays either.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #120 of 201 Old 03-25-2014, 09:40 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Posts: 2,857
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 14
I have been watching CRT-RPTVs with non reflective screens for over 30 years. My present TV is a 73" Mitsubishi. Too bad Mitsubishi got out of the business, they probably could have made a great 4K rear projector.
Bill is offline  
Reply Flat Panels General and OLED Technology

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off