Tintguy1980

Well, I recently bought a house where both toilets were the old round, low to the floor type. Called a plumber to assess cost and he was trying to sell me a 650$ toilet. I says, I'll pass and asked if I bought toilets elsewhere, would he install them. He says, yes. It isn't much different when someone supplies the film. Back in my days, the most I would do is give a discount from full price. That would help cover the film cost the custy laid out. Of course, there is absolutely no warranty on product or installation; take it or leave. Oh and ah, don't muck a piece up and be sure they have enough. Even then I gave it my best at install, because ... the person just might be back within a year or two needing an R&R. There was no heating forming film in those days, so that adds a sour point to using customer provided film today. None the less, they are introduced to the business and will either be back for your professional grade film or become a word-of-mouth soundboard for you, or both. My .

Ah, 😂 NO! Sorry, I'm retired and have a serious case of essential tremors in my dominant hand. It's scary to watch me change out an Olfa blade. My ex-wife was not with us but, she too was as much an artist as the rest of us. We just chose window film as our medium over, clay, pastels, oil, pencil, etc. It is, to say the least, trick to do; it takes time. For example, the radio station doors took four hours of steady work. All our work was hand cut. Plotters were unheard of then from a window film perspective. Layering color in requires letting existing layers to set up. Even with plotters and transfer tape today, you can do layers but again, each layer has to set up before you apply any other layer. This is so you don't lift, shit (freudian slip) shift, or mar the layer below. You can begin simple by getting a piece of glass, film it and start carving a simple design and get it done before the film adhesive sets. If it sets, it's a pain to clean away adhesive without marring film edges. In time you'll learn what to leave on the glass and what to remove. The final phase is to lay one last layer the locks all layers to the glass. Use a straight-dyed film as the first and the final layer should have a different sheen to make the cutaway areas POP. Example the Blazer's back glass. Any new hires would learn to do what I just described to get them use to handling an Olfa knife without scarring the glass. Good luck.

Dano, this caught my eye and reminded me of the early days ... well, five years in should I say. Me and my crew began doing tint tattoos for any glass back in the mid-80's. We used overhead projectors to enlarge-to-fit any picture a person brought us. It started by tracing a pic's lines with super fine sharpie onto liner material (we saved liner when doing large commercial glass for this purpose). Film would be installed, liner taped to the other side and begin cutting away unnecessary film to achieve the end goal. Layering in colors, if they wanted it in color. I've attached a couple 3 pictures showing the liner trace of one particular picture somebody was interested in, an entry door to a radio station in Estero FL and one with all of us pictured at window film art tint-off held in Orlando by Gila Films. We took first place in both auto and flat glass categories, blowing everyone else out of the water to the extent we were not invited back unless we bought their film. Oddly, we eventually heard about a guy in Tampa doing the same type film art of commercial glass. His company was Solar Graphics and was sold to Solar Gard a few years later. I think Richard, the owner, was working for SG after the sale. Fun days for sure. The picture with the three of us, well, I'm the long drink of water, Lee with his submission to the contest (we lost Lee a couple years ago) and Donna, who tagged team with me on the Blazer's back glass.

I've covered potential hazards with a towel, a blanket, and other soft-surface cloth material without issue. No guarantee with sharp pokes to the cloth material (ex hardwood, metal, or glass corner).

Most shops will provide you with a receipt and or a typed warranty that would/should include the manufacturing lot number(s) of the boxed roll of film installed on your vehicle. You could then call whatever number the warranty might list, communicate via snail- or e-mail, and ask your question using the lot number(s) you were provided. Last time I was active in the industry 3M, LLumar, and possibly one or two others ID'd their brand with a printed logo. 3M's was on the film surface and could be cleaned away with Iso-alcohol and LLumar's would be found on the removable liner used to protect the adhesive until installed. Even still, you wouldn't know what flavor they installed be seeing the printed logo; ceramic, dye-metal or straight-dyed. Lot (production) numbers ID the film. These numbers need be provided to the consumer at PoP; it is the way the film 'maker' on any warranty provided can honor a warranty.

High dollar quotes may be representative of; 1) high overhead costs or 2) wanting to stand out in a crowded field through a price illusion of having the best. Most all 'ceramic' films in the industry come within 5 or so percentage points of each other in terms of TSER. The amount of difference is trivial in comparison to overall performance, while occupying the car. Write each one down on a small piece of paper, put them in a bowl, and blindly pick one. Then, get an idea of what their workmanship looks like by visiting their shop, what the product might look like on your vehicle, and what might be their service history rating from online apps. Workmanship outweighs all other factors. I cannot pick for 'you'.

Sorry Randomwalk101, but a BTU meter was specifically designed to measure performance of HVAC units, therefore is unreliable in measuring the sun's electromagnetic radiation. As it has been stated by Ryker: "Unless you have a really high dollar meter you aren't measuring any thing worthwhile." The film manufacturers rely on a $100K+ spectrophotometer to conclude solar performance of window films. If you want the best in accuracy during field testing you'll pay a hefty price for one the the following hand-held devices. https://www.edtm.com/ Here's an explanation from a previous thread that may shine some (solar) light on your quandary: ~ The chart attached shows electromagnetic radiation range in terms of Visible 48+%, Ultraviolet <2%, and Near infrared (NIR) 49+/-% light (using the red line). Publishing one wavelength/nanometer number really does not give the big picture. Let's compare 3M's published single wavelength in NIR is at 950nm (nanometers) to Xpel's at 1025nm: you will see by the linear charting that there's a pronounced dip (bottoming out) at 950 and a peak at the 1025 position. The peaks and valleys are representative of the 'intensity' of the NIR radiation. A dip is low intensity, a peak is high intensity. Neither of these two numbers fall within the most intense NIR radiation found between the 780 and 1000nm range. So, if someone were to publish an 800nm range (a high peak in intensity), it stands to reason 800 will be a better published performance number to that of 950 or 1025. That said, the entire NIR range (considered to be 780-2500nm) is already accounted for in each films' published TSER (including visible and UV light radiation). Hopefully this should point out the 'why' it's not reliable to state a single wavelength as any films' performance capability. Edit for the sake of Joe Public reading this: the entire electromagnetic radiation range of the sun (UV, NIR, Visible light) is responsible for 'heat', however, only after it strikes, is absorbed by a surface and is re-radiate off that surface as far-infrared (FIR). FIR IS known as heat. The reason behind any use of NIR wavelength(s) is because the human body senses NIR conversion to FIR much quicker than UV or Visible light energy. NIR travels beneath the skin closer to nerve endings, which is where water, being highly absorptive of NIR, heats up. Now, if a reported 88% NIR rejection at 1025nm is brought into perspective by using NIR's 49% of 100% of the sun's radiation, in reality it's such a minuscule number when accounting all wavelengths from the sun, combined. Sure sounds good to say 88%, but the (TSER) big picture tells the truth in film performance values. And, it makes stating 88% heat rejection misleading at best. ~

Just for shiggles and recharge my memory of, The chart attached shows electromagnetic radiation range in terms of Visible 48+%, Ultraviolet <2%, and Near infrared (NIR) 49+/-% light (using the red line). Publishing one wavelength/nanometer number really does not give the big picture. Let's compare 3M's published single wavelength in NIR is at 950nm (nanometers) to Xpel's at 1025nm: you will see by the linear charting that there's a pronounced dip (bottoming out) at 950 and a peak at the 1025 position. The peaks and valleys are representative of the 'intensity' of the NIR radiation. A dip is low intensity, a peak is high intensity. Neither of these two numbers fall within the most intense NIR radiation found between the 780 and 1000nm range. So, if someone were to publish an 800nm range (a high peak in intensity), it stands to reason 800 will be a better published performance number to that of 950 or 1025. That said, the entire NIR range (considered to be 780-2500nm) is already accounted for in each films' published TSER (including visible and UV light radiation). Hopefully this should point out the 'why' it's not reliable to state a single wavelength as any films' performance capability. Edit for the sake of Joe Public reading this: the entire electromagnetic radiation range of the sun (UV, NIR, Visible light) is responsible for 'heat', however, only after it strikes, is absorbed by a surface and is re-radiate off that surface as far-infrared (FIR). FIR IS known as heat. The reason behind any use of NIR wavelength(s) is because the human body senses NIR conversion to FIR much quicker than UV or Visible light energy. NIR travels beneath the skin closer to nerve endings, which is where water, being highly absorptive of NIR, heats up. Now, if a reported 88% NIR rejection at 1025nm is brought into perspective by using NIR's 49% of 100% of the sun's radiation, in reality it's such a minuscule number when accounting all wavelengths from the sun, combined. Sure sounds good to say 88%, but the (TSER) big picture tells the truth in film performance values. And, it makes stating 88% heat rejection misleading at best.

It looks that light and it is blue rather than green. I am unsure there exists a green film with similar properties.

Xpel came to the market with paint protection film within the last couple decades or so and only started selling window film inside the last decade. I am unsure if Xpel equates to the manufacturing history of this next candidate. Pinnacle is a film made by a manufacturer who is one member of the industry's genesis group of 4 or five and has been known for the quality of their automotive film products since the late 80's to early 90's. Never mind they've changed hands several times and are now a division of Eastman Chemical. 88% heat rejection IS a misleading statement. It relies on a number taken from a small portion of the near infrared (NIR) energy of the sun, which makes up only 48 +% of the sun's electromagnetic energy --- combine that with visible light 49 +% and ultraviolet light 2 +/-% adding up to 100%. All of these percentages are responsible for 'heat' and is why TSER is the true measure of every films' performance capability. NIR, visible and ultraviolet light are not heat, it is electromagnetic energy. Once it strikes, and is absorbed by, a surface it converts to far infrared radiating off said surface. Far infrared IS defined as heat. Shop selling Pinnacle is a win win; best installer and best film.

Since I'm an older user/seller of SolarGard products, I'd have to say, 'go with that one'.

This window is one where the bottom gets shrunk first, then the entire sheet is lifted and re-positioned with the top edge of the film below the vinyl's edge. Reset the horizontal anchor working remaining shrinkable excess to the top and go. The bottom (already shrunk) should be carefully smoothed out to ensure anything needing to be heat formed ends up on the upper half; all the while avoiding what overlaps the bottom framework. It's trick but easy enough not to cause too many headaches at install. Oh and ah, run some painters tape along the vinyl's edge that meets the glass to shield it from the heat. Two layers might be best. Tape it off as though you are going to paint. I've used and shown folks this method on newer cars that have top edge tucked well under an air spoiler.

As long as the glass is tempered, there is zero risk of thermal breakage, however, dark, highly absorptive, film products pose a risk for seal failure, tempered and or annealed. Usually, the factory dark units have the dark glass layer to the exterior and a clear layer as the inner layer; reversing that structure using film has higher risks.

It looks like there's a scattering of tiny air trails that occur when the tinter was installing the film. It happens during the installation process of pushing the slip solution out by squeegee. If the liner gets peeled and the adhesive is not sufficiently saturated before applying to the glass surface, any dry area on the adhesive will grab the glass. As the installer squeegees the slip solution out, the solution in front of the squeegee blade carries small amounts of air which can easily be forced into the adhesive structure at the dry spot; trapping microscopic air pockets in a streaked fashion. Redo is the only way to know for sure. Air scattering can also occur when finding an air bubble after one thinks they are done with the window and an attempt to push the air out only splinters it into streaks in the adhesive because the adhesive has tacked.

Rub kostis run.

Well, at least your install is in good condition. 😆 As much as I'd like to say, "It'll be okay", my background tells me, "R & R" to be safe and sure from a warranty perspective. I have zero film or technical experience with soaps with conditioners.

Pube h311, that's a lost elephant sperm.

Good plan to let the shop attempt to clear this up.

A keg runs more than a day or two depending upon vehicle flow-thru. Not good as the slip solution tends to loose its slip over that time. Day one with new mix may be great, using same mix on day 3+, not so good. Bubble bath, I'm sure has been tried by others along with various other soaps, which turn out to be harmful to the film's adhesive life over the long haul. This is why products such as Tintslime, Film-on, and knock-offs were created. They may not have the slip-ability of the ones the industry prefer you avoid, but it's as simple as increasing the dilution ratio to meet the season. Also, less push against when positioning goes a long way. Fingertips and palms can and will act as tiny squeegees, pushing the moisture out and pressing the adhesive into contact with the glass before its time.

One unorthodox effort would be to carefully create a small slit next to and parallel to the defrost line and then carefully press out that half of the peanut. Fingernail must stop at the slit. Repeat on other side of defrost line with even more care not to disrupt the tiny amount of film over the defrost line (between each slit). This allows the stubborn pucker to grab the glass surface as opposed to grabbing the defroster material. It also seals off any air feed along the defrost line to the affected area. I've done this with success and without damaging the small amount of film between each slit, nor causing any damage to the defrost line by way of razor blade use. A steady hand IS an absolute.

25% VLT IF it is safe for dual-pane glazing however, 25% will increase the reflective look when looking at the glass from the street. Story: I had a girlfriend that wanted to have sex next to a large window facing a major highway in a local office complex that had me come over to give an estimate to remove and replace. It was tinted with a 20% VLT, high reflective tint (mirrored) and there was a Mc D's across the street. I says, No F'in' way; we'd have to be a bit further back from the glass and even then someone with a keen eye could spot something amiss on the inside of that glass since the sun was hitting that side of the building. Different if it was a shaded side.

A dual-reflective, 30-35% visible light transmitted, would provide sufficient daytime privacy and lessen the threat of glass breakage and or dual pane seal failure. Limo dark would definitely cause problems relating to thermal shock and seal failure in dual pane glazing systems. A 35% VLT dual-reflective (DR film) barely changes the appearance of a dual pane window (looking from street to home). However, it does enhance privacy (comparable to having sheer curtains). Just don't stand within a few feet (<6') of the window with your birthday suit on ... most especially when the sun shines directly on that window. Edit: when peeling liner from film (especially film with sticky glue), use your mouth as a third hand to hold one corner and the free hand to peel the liner down. Or have someone peel and pull down. To keep the film from curling onto itself, do not peel the liner completely off; let 1-2 inches remain attached at the bottom to weight the film down.

Proper way to clean any spray bottle used for installing window film is to dump unused at the end of each day, thoroughly rinse, and set upside down overnight to drain and dry. Residuals of many soaps used by tinters can and will build up on the internal surface of these bottles and congeal over time only to release as tiny globules and show up under the film. Someone can chime in and point you to slip agents best suited for installing film and lessen the production of these specks. Even so, it is still best to rinse each and every time you are finished for the day.

Stan still at it. He11, I thought he'd be retarded err retired by now. 😵

I came here this morning to say exactly what's said in the above quote minus the BMW story; fine scratches on many occasions are invisible to the eye until a window film is applied.