No penis association -- I was referring to the size of your screen.

Unfortunately, I have no opinions whatsoever on FP systems, except that they look kind of groovy. I just like 'em big.

------------------
Matthew J. Hill
matt@idsi.net

but IMO it's way too early to call a winner reliably.

When you reread your own posts you realize you might have emphasized something you did not intend.
I don’t particularly feel LCD is coming out on top…..only noticed in the quick surf that LCD and DLP appear to dominate newly released and scheduled products. But it seems almost as if all the major players are source-ing and producing at least one model representing each technology. Covering their bases to be ready to turn any direction?

The consumer can be fickle it will only take one company selling one technology like hotcakes, by reducing BOM costs and receiving a rash of public attention, for many of the others to immediately try to follow.
Philips is definitely putting some money into LCOS pushing their 'Engaze' technology.
GLV sounds interesting from your mentions here….I’ll be looking up what I can find on that next. Last night I focused on ‘on the shelf’ applications.

This is very interesting as regards some projections for the projection market!

“Midori Takaso of Techno Systems Research, Co (TSR) presented a more integrated view of the total market for all large-sized displays with the combination of all projection and flat panel presentation and entertainment displays growing from 5M in 2001 to 16M in 2005. While her forecast for enterprise front projection of 2.5M units was more in line with the DTC forecast, she presented a much more optimistic view of sales prospects for home entertainment projection systems. By 2005 TSR sees the potential for nearly 10 million microdisplay-based projection systems, about 80% of them front projectors.

Key to the TSR forecast is the $1,000 front projector, which will have the impact of dramatically expanding demand in the home to more than 5M systems. Coggshall agrees that a $1,000 consumer home front projector could sell, but the sales channel is unclear and installation problems remain big stumbling blocks.
Takaso sees HTPS remaining the dominant microdisplay technology with nearly 80% market share in 2005 with DLP capturing most of the balance. LCOS will hold a minor share. PMA sees DLP claiming a 42% market share by 2006, on the other hand.

Takaso also predicted that RPTV sales will peak in 2004 at nearly 4M sets and then decline, faced by stiff competition from front projection and flat panel televisions. Even at maturity, TSR predicts that more than half of RPTVs will still incorporate CRT, not microdisplay engines.
These market analyst were joined by Allen Alley, CEO of Pixelworks and the keynote addressee, and Peter Putman, President of ROAM consulting, a plasma display market and technology expert for a roundtable discussion and Q&A session. Putman stressed that plasma TVs are a competitive force because they meet consumers expectations of a television by supporting the CRT-based viewing paradigm. Most importantly, image quality continues to improve and he predicts we are about to enter a period of rapid price declines, forecasting prices in the range of $3,000 to $4,000 for 30 to 40-inch panels within the next year.

One issue raised by more than a few of the attendees was the wide variation in market forecasts. How could market experts see things so differently? Responses ranged from supply vs. demand perspectives, differences in pricing assumptions, and varying assessments of the competitive technologies. On the other hand, there was wide agreement on the promise of the education market and the importance of the home front projection opportunity."

Would that last spell OUTLAW getting into FP systems if the market does move closer towards 999. home systems?

As the market in the East is always one to watch for trends:
“Taiwan Kolin Co. is scheduled to start production of 50-inch reflective liquid-crystal-on-silicon televisions early next year, the first company in Taiwan to do so. The company displayed two prototypes with resolutions of 1,280 pixels x 720 pixels at a recent Taipei electronics exhibition. Company executives said that LCOS TVs would serve as the next generation and have low production costs and better images. At about half the price of plasma-display-panel TVs, LCOS TVs will target markets in the United States, Europe and China. The firm is optimistic that the TVs will help it regain the title as Taiwan's top TV maker”



[This message has been edited by Smart Little Lena (edited November 27, 2002).]

Lena,

I think the future will be dominated by microdisplays in general. When production really ramps up (if ever) they'll be cheaper than CRT to make, and have in most ways at least an 'as good as CRT' picture. Probably better overall in the future.
And the sets are inherently lighter and thinner depth which is good in general I think, but not a big deal to me.

Whether that microdisplay is DLP or LCoS or something 'down the road' like GLV who can say, but since LCD is the oldest of the microdisplays and DLP is currently dominant I don't think LCD will make any further gains (even though I think it's drastically improved over the years to a pretty high quality level).

Since you bring up the GrandWega... I can say personally I don't have ANY idea what the specs are, but that I've seen it in person and found that I couldn't adjust it to have a black level anywhere close to what a CRT RP can do. It's dark gray at best IMO.

LCD also has a larger pixel gap than DLP or LCoS which at a typical viewing distance (depends on the screen size) I find to be 'slight' but noticable.
I'm not big on the color I saw from it compared to CRT either. And the bulb life/durability/heat/fan noise.

Or the current higher price for what I feel is much lower performance.
Sorry, but I have to call 'em like I see 'em. I didn't want to bring it up, but since you mentioned it...

Also most people seem to flip out over thin LCD comp. monitors, but I think the pixel gaps make them look much worse than direct view CRT (which again.. it still far cheaper too).

I find the same with Plasma though, and while I find the black level fine w/ plasma giving it the nob IMO over LCD, it (like direct view CRT's) doesn't have that 'filmic look'.
I still can't define what that is though? Maybe it's too high contrast? Naw.. that doesn't sound right? Maybe it's the glass surface that bothers me. Maybe that only projection (either front OR rear) looks 'filmic' to me?? I don't know what it is.

As for LCoS... The companies you mentioned seemed to mostly be the big display companies. They like to act like they are developing these technologies but it's small companies like Three-Five System, InViso (sp?) Colorado Microdisplay (that changed it's name I think recently) ect.. that are actually developing these chips.

Like how Sony will take credit for the GLV chip (probably renaming it like they typically do) even though it was Silicon Light Machines that developed it several years ago.

I think JVC actually in-house developed their LCoS systems though.
They're still the only ones who've been able to ramp up and bring this technology to market.
They have been doing it for years and you can read rave reviews about their projectors (or better still if you can go see one in person).
They were supose to release a RP set in the U.S. but for some reason they pulled back?? I think they did release this ovreseas though? I wish I had more details.

Samsung WAS going to release a LCoS RP but the quality of the chip supply was not consistent (from what I 'heard'). They said 'F-it! and went with DLP instad which TI has a very consistent production of.

Same thing happened to the LCoS RCA set.
Though RCA has so far just stuck to CRT -not that RCA or Samsung are very respected brands so no loss I think. Maybe they just couldn't do the inovations that need to be done.

LCoS may never get anywhere beyond being JVC only if the big companies don't support these little ones who are developing it.

The DLP chip works so 'why bother with anything else' these companies might be saying?

Those who are REALLY into front projection like how LCoS is 3 chip so you get full color control and no rainbow for anyone and perfect 'real world'color convergence.
(Charlie can keep 2nd guessing this, but he needs to actually go SEE one).
It has as tight a pixel gap as DLP and doesn't have any mechanical mirrors to get stuck.

In ramped up production there's no reason why it wouldn't always be a cheaper system than DLP. At the same resolution 3 chip LCDs have always been quite a bit cheaper than 1 chip DLP. Millions of moving mirrors will always cost a LOT to make.
LCoS is basically not any costlier than LCD. The displays coming from these smaller companies just need to be perfected I think, or implemented by some very skilled design people?

Three-Five systems has developed an LCoS chip that's far higher rez than any DLP (JVC has chips like this too). And they have full color engine and optics systems in place. Why aren't they in front and rear projectors like DLP??? I don't know. I'm certainly trying to find out though.
JVC has done a 'little bit' of marketing their chips to other companies, but so far not much. Maybe if they pushed it like TI does for DLP they'd make some real big waves.

AVSforum where there's LOTS of talk on projectors in every technical detail imaginable is marketing their own projector and it's LCoS.
I think it's the best elements of all the microdiplay designs. And every element of it has been shown to work just as claimed in actual production applications.

Despite this, it may never go anywhere.

Like how alternative engine designs have been developed over the years, but the big car makers want to stick with 4 stroke piston/gas powered so all the others have disappeared (the rare rotary engine in the Mazda RX-7/8 is along these lines as are electric/fuel cell vehicles that are only recently being heavily developed due to government pressure and oil supply threat).

Here I can wholeheartedly agree with you. I can't quite figure out exactly what it is either, but I suspect it to be a combination of factors. Things I kinda suspect are the (as you said) characteristics of being projected, whatever they are, plus I think in the case of DLP the color gamut is generally closer to film.

Neither CRT or DLP projection looks really like film, but to me they look quite different from each other and so their 'non-filmicness' seems to be from at least partly different sources. In the case of DLP the scaler artifacts, motion artifacts (scaler too maybe), lack of grain texture and 'discreteness' of the pixels among other things are the ones I can notice. For CRT projectors color gamut still looks like a tube glowing and some of above factors also apply. One nice thing about CRT is the lack of obvious pixelation.



Always is such a strong word. I guess it depends on how you define cost a lot. In fact the silicon surface micromachining process TI uses has great potential to become dirt cheap with adequate refinement. At one time not so long ago the cost per transistor on an IC was pretty high too. MEMS is young and is very promising in the general case for all sorts of sensors and actuators. Everything from navigational systems to network routers to print heads have the potential to benefit from this technology, and with this level of interest advances in capability and drops in production cost should be rapid. Of course drops in consumer cost are not directly driven by production costs.



I see one (LCD projector) all the time. I never took it apart though.

2D vs. 1D arrays, I appreciate the economies that could be enjoyed with a 1D system, but I tend to think, given the fact that MEMS is virtually certain to improve in quality and drop in price by orders of magnitude as time goes by, a 2D solution probably has better legs. I'm not sure how broad or how defensable the TI DMD patents are, but I hope they don't completely preclude competitors from creating MEMS based 2D solutions. Patents are slippery things (my name is on 10-14 so I have some first hand experience here) that can be very narrowly or broadly interpreted depending on many factors.

"I see one (LCD projector) all the time. I never took it apart though."

'-never took it apart-' .... you crack me up! hehe

Why haven't you commented on how the color convergence is on it by now?
Scratch that... just say what you observe the convergence to look like. Or can't you accept practical application to be of any value (like everyone else does)?

In the end that's the only thing that matters.
You could print all the data in the world to say something's technically wrong, but when you look at it and it and the color appears perfectly aligned... the data is pointless.

The color wheel in the Plus Piano was suposed to be technically fast enough so that rainbow effect was eliminated, but I saw it to a small degree and my wife saw it much more.

"2D vs. 1D arrays, I appreciate the economies that could be enjoyed with a 1D system, but I tend to think, given the fact that MEMS is virtually certain to improve in quality and drop in price by orders of magnitude as time goes by, a 2D solution probably has better legs."

That doesn't make any sense since the only 1D array mentioned is ALSO a MEMS device!?!?

The GLV's ribbons are a simpler system mechanically than the hinged DLP mirrors (totally frictionless movement vs. mirror hinges that can and do get stuck)... so that's also a factor of cost and percentage of 'bad chips' from the production line.

"I'm not sure how broad or how defensable the TI DMD patents are, but I hope they don't completely preclude competitors from creating MEMS based 2D solutions."

They don't. There have already been other 2D array MEMS systems. One was kind of a cross between the DLP and the GLV design where square pixel elements (like DLP) deflected light by the center pulling in and out (like the GLV ribbons). Nothing's come of this since the years ago I heard about it, so I doubt anything ever will.

I doubt another company could sweep in and produce an equal quality DLP knock-off even if TI had no patants on it (though they of course do).

I find technology knock-offs that can match the original are only found in systems that have been fully refined and the knock off just manages to hit the same clear target 'cheaper'.
Things like DLP chips are still moving targets... unless the pixels stick.

Oh man! Now THAT was an awful GEEK joke. I'll never live it down!

The DLP chips are very costly now and while I'm sure they'll get cheaper they're not made like typical ICs.
LCD and LCoS should always be cheaper to make if produced in similar volumes. Like I said 3 chip LCD projectors have always been cheaper than 1 chip DLP.

Remember that if a pixel gets stuck on DLP it's a very noticable black dot (they get stuck 'off').

LCD and more importantly IMO LCoS has much less problems with bad pixels. And even 'if' a pixel goes bad on a 3 chip system you still get the two other colors.

This won't be 'right' obviously, but it's much less noticable than a constant black dot, and the chance of 2 or all 3 colors of the same pixel going bad are next to impossible (unless the whole chip set gets damaged or something goofy like that).

Having seen several front and rear DLP projectors with stuck pixels (of the small total number of systems I've seen) and having seen many angry posts on AVSforum from (formerly) happy DLP owners who later got hit with a stuck pixel one day... this will always worry me about this one chip system.

Yeah - I didn't actually connect all the dots on that one did I? I'll try to be better. What I was getting at was that the 1D solution needs additional parts to smear it across 2D, and it has other issues (potentially) due to this smearing. So it seems to me that as cost of MEMS drops a 1D solution would benefit less.

In other words if each device costs $0.0005 to make and the rest of the assembly is as follows:

2D - (just exemplary)

Chip $500
Other 100
-----------
$600

1D

Chip $ 12
Other 250
-----------
$262

12 months later.... device cost $0.00005

2D

Chip $ 50
Other 100
-----------
$150

1D

Chip $ 2
Other 250
-----------
$252

Sort of like that.

Among the other potential issues I can see so far are the one I mentioned earlier, plus the 1D reflective array has no benefit of phosphor persistence to lengthen its' on time. In effect each pixel would only be on 1/1920th of the time or less, even if very brightly. This would seem to indicate a possible flicker issue unless the scan is considerably faster than 30FPS. The image could be painted more than once at a higher frame rate, but then we're adding complexity again. I'm not even sure if this is an issue, but the potential seems to be there. I'm also quite sensitive to flicker.

I bought a de-interlaced TV 9 years ago (not cheap) simply to get rid of it as much as I could at the time.



Because it's not germane to the discussion unless I know whether there's a convergence adjustment inside. And because (to a lesser degree) it's not DLP.



The technology is very young. In a short period of time it will improve dramaticly. Most failures in MEMS devices are (typically) attributed to defects in manufacturung, even if the fail in the field. I'm not up on failures in DMD specifically, but motion sensors which use the same basic fab techniques (accelerometers, gyros) are in this class and I have no reason to believe DMD is any different. As quality improves this is becoming less and less of an issue.

Also, consider what a failed 1D device would look like if it ever happened.

Have a good one.

EDIT:

Here are some items from DMD failure analysis and QC docs:

"We now estimate,as we have demonstrated, that hinges will not break during at least 10 years of normal use in any application and more than 50 years in most applications."

And the overall conclusion:

"Through the use of accelerated life testing, the development of rudimentary
models, and environmental qualification, we have identified what we believe to be the complete list of life-limiting factors. As
discussed previously, hinge fatigue and environmental exposure are not life limiting. Particulate contamination appears to be random and not dependent on time or stress. We have not identified any correlation between light exposure and life. Through design robustness and process
control, we have eliminated all known contributors to surface adhesion degradation. This leaves hinge memory. Because hinge memory is so predictable, we have easily estimated our lifetime to be
greater than 100,000 hours, as long as the DMD die temperature is maintained at 45 °C or below.

Although an actual lifetime of 100,000 hours has not yet been demonstrated,
there is supporting evidence that DMD lifetime is measured in thousands of hours. Existing data through nearly 2 years of product deliveries have confirmed no DMD failures due to parametric curve
degradation (bias voltage parametric curves and reset voltage parametric curves). Several DMDs remain on test through 19,000 actual operating hours with no failures to date. This certainly supports the test results and estimates. In terms of random failures, few devices have failed during enditem use. We anticipated that particles would dominate random failures,
and that has proved to be true. Particles remain our primary cause of yield loss, but we have not observed a significant amount of customer returns caused by particles. In fact, even though particles are our primary
pareto item (Figure 12), the field failure rate for all DMDs delivered to date is less than 0.2%. We have estimated a mean time
between failures (MTBF) by using the total number of units shipped, multiplied by an estimate of usage hours per month, divided by the total number of reported DMD failures. Using conservative estimates
for all three of these factors, we have a demonstrated MTBF (random failures) of 119,000 hours."

That means the average DMD would fail in my house after about 80 years. I can live with that.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited November 27, 2002).]

I finally had some time for research. These may be of interest:

http://www.barco.com/projection_systems/downloads/moca.pdf

http://store.mcsinet.com/kore/catalog/Pr...SF/product.html

So it seems that at least some multi chip LCDs have external or motorized convergence adjustments. And, as I said before, I suspect even (at least some of) those who don't expose it still have a set of screws buried deep inside their guts for a service tech or assembly tech to fiddle with.

Have a good one.

"Yeah - I didn't actually connect all the dots on that one did I? I'll try to be better. What I was getting at was that the 1D solution needs additional parts to smear it across 2D, and it has other issues (potentially) due to this smearing."

This is you trying to be better!? You then proceed to make weird guesses on the additional costs of 1D scanning parts and call this scanning process 'smearing'? You have no idea what you are talking about. This is getting sickening.

I told you how many times now ... go find out how that system works before you post more goofy things like this.
I could tell you exactly how the 1D image is scanned across the screen and these additional part costs are not significant at all compared to the highly technical/exacting chip making process... in which a 2D DLP array is FAAAR more involved and prone to failure than a 1D system.
But I won't tell you the details. Go find out for yourself since I'm sick of hearing you make guesses based on total lack of knowledge on the subject.

"So it seems to me that as cost of MEMS drops a 1D solution would benefit less."

Yes, you're right...based on your fictional numbers and next to no idea what the GLV system is. In actuality though... you're totally wrong.

"Among the other potential issues I can see so far are the one I mentioned earlier-"

Blah blah blah... You DO NOT know how it works. Your guesses are pointless. A working prototype has been made over 3 years ago, and has had independant reports made on it's very high quality. I SAID this already! I'm not going to go over the technical details about why you're wrong again, because you don't even know how the system works!

It's like you're just too lazy to find out how it works so you're making goofy guesses about it so you'll trick me into just explaining everything about it to you?

Quit talking about something you don't know about.

I said -Why haven't you commented on how the color convergence is on it by now (an LCD projector you eventually said you've seen)?

And you say "Because it's not germane to the discussion unless I know whether there's a convergence adjustment inside. And because (to a lesser degree) it's not DLP."

Oh! So basically because you disregard my point about real world application being important, and your shallow-minded DLP-only train of thought, nothing else matters to you. Well, don't ask me any questions if you won't answer mine.

"The technology (DLP) is very young. In a short period of time it will improve dramaticly."

As I said DLP is over 10 years old. That's NOT young. And it has incrementally improved over time so I think we can all easily guess as to how it's future progress will continue.

Your 'dramaticly improve in a short time' blanket 'guess' is very silly for someone who demands hard numbers from everyone else when they state something.

"As quality improves this is becoming less and less of an issue."

So? It's STILL an issue.
I was just at a local electronics store YESTERDAY and saw the brand new Samsung DLP RP.

It was 50" I think and on sale for $3,779 (right there hundreds more and far smaler than my CRT).
It uses the latest HD DLP chip and right there in the center of the screen was a STUCK pixel.

I can say I was wrong though about stuck pixels always being 'off' (like all the ones I've seen in the past), 'cuz this one was stuck 'on' so it was a bright white dot noticable from any reasonable viewing distance.

"Also, consider what a failed 1D device would look like if it ever happened."

Like I said already... the GLV ribbons CAN'T get stuck. There's no hinges to 'stick'. Quit speaking about subjects that you no next to nothing about. I've been over this exact subject with you. It's like all I'm doing now is repeating myself to counter the mistakes you keep posting.

"We now estimate,as we have demonstrated, that hinges will not break during at least 10 years of normal use in any application and more than 50 years in most applications."

Yeah, NONE of the 'stuck' pixels I've seen were probably due to broken hinges, but due to STUCK hinges. duh!

You can be fooled by a TI press release telling you it'll last 100,000 hours, but I've seen stuck pixels in probably half of all the front and rear projection systems I've seen now.
Will this improve in years? I'd guess it would. But everytime I see a new DLP system w/ a bad pixel the more years I think it'll take before I a DLP system to NOT ever get a stuck pixel -if I ever trust it that much.

"That means the average DMD would fail in my house after about 80 years. I can live with that."

If you would've bought that New Samsung I saw it'd lastedyou aboyt 2 weeks. That's a FACT. Your silly 80 comment is guess based on TI's propaganda data. Only a fool would trust that when contrary fact stare him right in the face.

As I've said before you're crazy to stand behind such foolish 'data' when 'real world' application tells a different story.
EVERY debate you and I have comes down to this same argument.
I live in the 'real world' and actually SEE (and HEAR in the case of my digital amp) these things in action and you live in a fictional world of 'data' where you fiddle with numbers that don't add up to anything of any value. You hide behind them.

I wonder what 'data' you'd spout off about if YOU actually bought a DLP system and and some time down the road you got a stuck pixel?? You'll never have to deal with that problem though because like you never had the guts to try a digital amp like to hear for yourself, you'll never buy a DLP system and take that stuck pixel (and rainbow) risk.

The store you bought it from probably wouldn't take it back, and TI doesn't consider a stuck pixel to be enough of a flaw to replace for free. I think they have a specific number like over 5 pixels or something so rare/high they never have to fix any bad chips they keep selling.

That's part of how they've gotten their costs down so much. Those 'lower costs' you keep mentioning as a plus in DLP's favor is partially from screwing random customers for the past 10 years. You should ask around how many people have gotten stuck pixels.

According to TI the vast majority of early production failures were due to contamination during fabrication. As that issue was dealt with they moved on to the next item - contamination due to poor packaging by the OEM.

Other factors come into play much lower down the charts, but stuck or broken hinges are not, according to TI, a factor. I suspect the failures you saw were probably not hinge related just based on their published reports. If you looked at the dead mirror with a transmission electron microscope and determined the hinge was malfunctioning then obviously the above would not apply.

I've watched several dozen DLP systems and never saw a stuck mirror, in some cases on systems with thousands of hours on them. Perhaps your experience is not a representative sample? I really doubt the manufacturers (OEMs like Samsung, Mitsubishi and Zenith) would jump onto the worst, least reliable and most expensive technology with both feet. I expect the expert engineers and scientists in the appropriate fields at the companies in question have evaluated the competing technologies and have rational defensable reasons to recommend DMD to their employer. I have no basis to second guess that level of expertise. Do you?

Please understand - I don't intend any of the things I say regarding the various technologies as a personal slam. I mention this because you seem to take some of this very personally.

I do understand roughly how the GLV stuff as published by SL works and their literature even states that the scanning beam is moved across the screen in a linear fashion. I don't understand what you're so uptight about. It is obvious the spot has finite size and must be either modulated in the analog domain or switched. SL seems to recommend an analog approach, which would eliminate the potential issues with moire and sub pixelation but would reintroduce all the possible old analog linearity issues with the additional caveat of a dependency on the long term consisency of a mechanical device instead of glowing phosphor. This is probably OK, but is an area of concern at the very least.

The price numbers are obviously pulled from thin air, I was merely trying to illustrate that as MEMS get cheaper to make the distribution of costs in the 1D vs. 2D approaches means the 1D approach is likely to benefit less and thus not scale as well with the technology. I tried it once without an example and you didn't understand, so I tried to be helpful and make a simple example. Anyone with a background in manufacturing or engineering would understand this as almost second nature.

As for convergence I think it's pretty clear some 3 chip systems have need of adjustments and I suspect that includes theater 3 chip DLP. As for how that scales to HT 3 chip DLP I wouldn't care to guess. I suspect the LCD we have has inside a set of screws for the assembly and service folks to adjust. The fact that some LCDs actually need external or motorized adjustments indicates to me that in reality they all (or at least most) probably have internal adjustments. Now it is true that routine convergence adjusting in most cases seems to be a thing of the past, but it also seems clear it can be required from time to time in 3 chip one lens systems. If not, why would the cited systems have advertized adjustments?

Also DMDs (pixels) are smaller that the LCDs I was able to find specs on which would only make the alignment requirements tighter, by a factor of 2-3 in the cases I could easily find.

Of course the obvious thing no one has worried about is that the GLV ribbons work by flexing back and forth really really fast. In a big scale machine that would be suicide, but that doesn't worry me either, since as I said before this size object and movement is something we are not equipped by experience to intuitively understand. The implications of the rules change and are not familiar to us at that scale.

Have a good day.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited December 01, 2002).]

"According to TI-"

As I said... you can believe maketing press 'data' from TI, but that makes you a sucker.

"I've watched several dozen DLP systems and never saw a stuck mirror, in some cases on systems with thousands of hours on them."

Sure you have. That's why you've never mentioned it till now that you've seen, what... 40+ DLP systems and all perfect? Uh huh.

"Perhaps your experience is not a representative sample?-"
Well, it's the only experience I can go by, and it's about 50/50 for DLP systems w/ stuck pixels. I have also read lots of others on the AVS forum finding stuck pixels.
I never guessed at how many in total number of percent or DLP's are actually bad, but I certainly wouldn't believe the lies TI fools you with.

"I really doubt the manufacturers (OEMs like Samsung, Mitsubishi and Zenith) would jump onto the worst, least reliable and most expensive technology with both feet."

First, none of them have replaced their CRT lines in RP so don't fool yourself (or others) that they've jumped in w/ both feet. They're just testing the waters at best.

Second, Samsung and Zenith are well know for being poor qualtiy brands. As is RCA who tried and failed to bring a LCoS to market. JVC had not failed in this respect.

"I expect the expert engineers and scientists in the appropriate fields at the companies in question have evaluated the competing technologies and have rational defensable reasons to recommend DMD to their employer. I have no basis to second guess that level of expertise. Do you?"

Yes. They're not the final word in production. Again... don't fool yourself and don't try to fool others here. All I do is correct all the conjecture you spit out.

As I have said (man this is annoying)... TI doesn't fix bad pixels under a certain (almost unreachable) number. All the bad chips I've seen only had one bad pixel, but that was enough to ruin the image and any reasonable distance.

For Samsung etc... why not market a system using this technology? They'll make money off of it (lots of other companies are) and won't have to bother with bad pixel complaints.

They're businesses and it's all about profit and keeping up with the competition... NOT that they actually think it's the best picture technology there is (or better than CRT or plasma or LCD, etc..).

Mitsu had one of the first rear DLP sets on the market years ago. It cost $16K (WAAAY more than their own CRT set of the same size) and looked much much worse. So why did they do it? To work on this technology. I'm sure they sold out of all these sets too to suckers who thought it was such a 'cool new thing' and were too stupid to tell the diff. from a CRT picture. Probably a few dishonest salemen helped too.

"Please understand - I don't intend any of the things I say regarding the various technologies as a personal slam. I mention this because you seem to take some of this very personally."

Well it's very annoying to have to correct you every post you make. I feel the need to so you won't fool anyone who is new to this subject. I wish you'd just quit posting these distorted bits of info though.

"I do understand roughly how the GLV stuff as published by SL works and their literature even states that the scanning beam is moved across the screen in a linear fashion. I don't understand what you're so uptight about."

Yeah, calling me 'uptight', that's not a personal slam now is it?

"Your whole point on GLV is conjecture."

"The price numbers are obviously pulled from thin air, I was merely trying to illustrate that as MEMS get cheaper to make the distribution of costs in the 1D vs. 2D approaches means the 1D approach is likely to benefit less and thus not scale as well with the technology."

Based on wild conjecture and ignoring actual 'real world' findings or that actual prototype, but what does the actual working projector have to do with anything right?

"I tried it once without an example and you didn't understand, so I tried to be helpful and make a simple example. Anyone with a background in manufacturing or engineering would understand this as almost second nature."

Oh damn! One more cheap shot! Don't claim that you don't mean any personal slams. You're just flat out full of it.

Your 'examples' were so 'simple' that they had certain words or phrases that you needed to define before someone else could clearly understand you, and your misuse of terms didn't make you any clearer either... like when you implied GLV is something diff. than a MEMS system.

"The fact that some LCDs actually need external or motorized adjustments indicates to me that in reality they all (or at least most) probably have internal adjustments."

They don't. Ask every LCD owner. And you still haven't commented on the LCD projector you claim you've seen. You say it doesn't matter if it's convergence is perfect or not (which I find funny since it probably has perfect convergence at any reasonable viewing distance and just backs up my point that color convergence error is NOT an issue.

"Also DMDs (pixels) are smaller that the LCDs I was able to find specs on which would only make the alignment requirements tighter, by a factor of 2-3 in the cases I could easily find."

There are LCD's that are just as small as DLP. You again, speak with too-limited knowledge.

"Of course the obvious thing no one has worried about is that the GLV ribbons work by flexing back and forth really really fast.-"

Well, the designers of it spoke about it, but they don't matter right? What do they know? Unlike your total trust TI's press release info. What a joke!

"-In a big scale machine that would be suicide-"

Why even bring up something so pointless as to say 'if it were really big..' You could (pointlessly) say the same thing for DLP.

The GLV ribbons have been tested just like the DLP mirrors have been tested. The GLV ribbons (unlike DLP) CAN'T get stuck (that ones's a fact) and have been found to not break due to such tiny movement. Maybe that second one's not true though and Sony's finding out they do break? Who knows. Personally I doubt it, but who cares.

It's not on the market yet so it's just pointless guessing. And maybe Sony'll release the system even if they do find the ribbons to have occational flaws.

TI has gotten away with that with bad DLP chips.

BTW, I saw a bad pixel on the Sony GrandWega a couple days ago and the store. Since it's a 3 chip system only one of the colors was out so at a reasonable viewing distance you couldn't harldy see the flaw.

I'd prefer NO flaws (like in ALL the CRT RP's there), but it was much less of a flaw than on the new Samsung with the bright white stuck 'on' pixel I saw there (that was probably the one of the newest sets in the store).