Tintguy1980

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 is unusual to simply do the windshield and front doors, unless they are already tinted. It's also a good idea to keep your expectations of performance from applied film at a low to moderate level. Film performs best when the vehicle is in motion or parked in the sun on a windy day. When parked in the sun all day with little wind, not so much.

Any air movement across tinted glass carries the absorbed solar energy from the glass. No air movement leads to a tinted or clear window car heating up inside as the transmitted and or absorbed solar energy gets radiated toward to the cooler interior. This goes on until reaching the 'gosh this car is hot' when climbing in scenario.

To that end, I would not suggest Stratos, since it has some of the highest absorption rates in automotive window film. FormulaOne film IS one of the gold standards of the industry and you will find their Pinnacle works well without the high absorption rates found in Stratos.

I would also suggest something less expensive for an 11 year old car.
There are plenty of brands out there that can serve you well in performance, life expectancy, and in terms of impact on your wallet. Examples would be: Global, Express, Xpel, LLumar, Madico, SolarGard, et al.

There was a model back before 1996 that had seat sensory that would cause the headrest to rise. Fun, fun, fun to work around.
 
Not much help, but just another story to be told.

I have a new favorite film; DR Ceramic.
 
Thank you Express Window Films.
 
Clarity in poly, adhesive ... and a smooth hardcoat makes for a wonderful installation experience.

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'.

Dayuum, you guys and gals are tough. It's been awhile since I've asked here before, but someone stepped up back then and sent me some Solyx version of dusted crystal.
 
I was really wanting to see if I could get my hands on some crystalline/prestige. That's okay, I understand the reluctance.
 
My second choice was Global DR Ceramic 45, which I have just placed and order through Express. Did not know they had custom cut, which works out better since I won't have extra sitting on the shelf in the basement like the remaining dusted crystal look-alike from Solyx. Thanks to whoever dealt with me on that purchase, it worked out great!
 
Cheers.

Three layers of 30% VLT film using the simple formula and not a meter translates into .027, which is 2.7% VLT.
 
.3 x .3 x .3 = .027
 
Three layers of 30% VLT film added to 70% VLT glass produces a VLT of .0189 aka 1.89% VLT.
 
.3 x .3 x .3 x .7 = .0189

Dual reflective 15.
 

The calculation used is correct, however, it is not as accurate as light meter. Neither the 30% nor the 40% will get you 30% VLT on an exact 70% VLT glass. There's a +/- 3% manufacturing variation for film products and for glass, exampled here: 1) 30% film could be 27%-33% and 2) 70% glass could be 67%-70%.
 
If your target is to be 30% by calculating (without meter) ... and, glass and film are precise, you would need a film with a precise VLT of 42.9%.
 
Now that this is clear, there's the light meter variance of +/- 2% at full charge battery.
 
Windshields must stay above 70%, that said, car mannies push it all the way to the limit.
 
Side and back glass varies wildly from badge to badge having a base limit of 70% down to 20% (give or take) for solar control privacy glass (this glass, today, can achieve above 60% solar control and 95% UV reduction). I've metered a 2014 Cadi front door at 70% with solar control at 47%. A low end early 2000's Mitsubishi front glass metered at 80%.
 
The newer glass is gaining performance while remaining in the 70% or above, including UV screening. Definitely high values with privacy glass.
 
Keep it legal.

The calculation used is correct, however, it is not as accurate as light meter. Neither the 30% nor the 40% will get you 30% VLT on an exact 70% VLT glass. There's a +/- 3% manufacturing variation for film products and for glass, exampled here: 1) 30% film could be 27%-33% and 2) 70% glass could be 67%-70%.
 
If your target is to be 30% by calculating (without meter) ... and, glass and film are precise, you would need a film with a precise VLT of 42.9%.
 
Now that this is clear, there's the light meter variance of +/- 2% at full charge battery.
 
Windshields must stay above 70%, that said, car mannies push it all the way to the limit.
 
Side and back glass varies wildly from badge to badge having a base limit of 70% down to 20% (give or take) for solar control privacy glass (this glass, today, can achieve above 60% solar control and 95% UV reduction). I've metered a 2014 Cadi front door at 70% with solar control at 47%. A low end early 2000's Mitsubishi front glass metered at 80%.
 
The newer glass is gaining performance while remaining in the 70% or above, including UV screening. Definitely high values with privacy glass.
 
Keep it legal.

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 .

I'm mind blown. how ... just how?  can you make a youtube tutorial? 

@Tintguy1980 That's some mighty fine craftwork there partner! Working in reverse layers and knowing what colors to drop, stack or hollow for transparency takes a clear vision of the end goal long before you het to the glass. I would imagine it was pleasantly mind bending. Aside from a few flames, I never developed a smooth enough hand for that level of detail. Thanks for sharing!

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.
 
 

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.

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.

This is from almost 20yrs ago.
 
15gal of paint, $300 of vinyl, old classroom projector and a stack of cards. Everyone can do it if they are motivated. Wash, rince, repeat.
 

Thanks TD. 
Shop for paint/prep/base coat...1day
 
Blend colors and project/stencil...1day
 
Cut cardboard template/air brush diamonds/clean up...2days
 
About 30hrs total, most of it after installing all day and early beforehand. 

Unless you have a really high dollar meter you aren't measuring any thing worthwhile. 
 
It's also likely that the "96%" or whatever is a narrow band of IR..... 

So you aren't measuring IR but a generic "solar heat". I've got the old analog btu meter and it was a cool tool but I don't use it and have not for probably 20 years. 
 
You are way overthinking this.  

How long the shop has been around helps but the work they do is more telling.  There are shops I know that have been "around" longer than I have but I was killing them in quality from the start.  Here I am 24 years in. 
 
Go look at the work they do. 

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.
 

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.