You're joking right?

First you rant off topic about an assortment of ideas that no one they pertain to will be reading -unless they check this obscure projector thread (IOW, a big waste of hot air), then you describe two projectors that will basically be available from other companies like Infocus and Plus.

What have you described that hasn't been done yet or (inevitably) soon will be?

Those two huge projector companies already sell online, and hit the lowest price points possible (dropping fast all the time). The only thing you added was that Outlaw should make the prices even lower than the current projectors. Wow. Good thinking.

Why don't you just buy one of the Plus of Infocus models when they drop to the price you want?

Outlaw needs something really innovative that nobody else has to get into this market. A combination of new ideas that the big boys like Plus and Infocus and the high end compaines haven't gotten behind yet.

LCoS has a tighter pixel structure (the best of digital options) and doesn't have the mechanical disadvantage of DLP's micromirrors getting stuck. In a three chip design it would have perfect color, obviously zero rainbow problems, and should be much cheaper to make than an equal resolution single chip/color wheel DLP system.

JVC's LCoS projectors are the best picture quality available in digital projection hands down and have been for years. No DLP beats them. They just cost way too much and use massive watt 'space heater' bulbs that cost a fortune too.

Other companies are starting to lic. the JVC chips, so maybe Outlaw could do the same and beat the price/value leaders Plus/Infocus to the punch. Those companies still don't fully grasp HT projector design yet, but they've got some very good starts right now, and better ones soon to come.

I think Outlaw isn't an innovator though. They seem to look at already existing and proven designs then figure out how to make very similar 'solid quality' versions of them at very low prices, which is great, but it won't get us a digital projector that'd beat the price/quality from Plus or Infocus.

Having a projector without video processing would make the price lower and for those who want to use a PC (a smart market to get into since a PC will output the best quality picture for anywhere near the money of the PC's cost) or use Outlaw's own video processor (obviously designed specifically for their projectors) or someone's own DVD player's processing (or Outlaw's DVD player if it ever sees the light of day), etc... no one wouldn't have to buy the added unused processing electronics if they didn't need them.

With a sepp. video processor Outlaw could have a unit that could be placed next to the users other components so they could use typical shorter length video cables from all their sources and then the vid. processor would output a flawless digital (DVI) signal optimized for the Outlaw projector on one simple cable.

Infocus said that's what their first HT projector was going to be, but then they didn't do it, and Plus's Piano doesn't do it either. Neither do most of the big name/costly projectors. Runco does it, but they cost an arm and a leg.

That's a typical Outlaw 'gap' just waiting to be filled.

Outlaw should just take Infocus' idea and implement it, before Infocus decides to.

They could develop an upconversion system that would make everything output at the exact HD resolution of the projector chip like PC's do, and make it user friendly by allowing all the stretch/zoom/crop/shift features that are needed in this crazy world of tons of aspect ratios and resolutions.

Pretty much plug and play for the simple minded, yet easy to tweak for the videophiles.

The main prob. in dig. projectors. is bulb life though. It's a major cost (hundreds of dollars every few months if you used a projector as much as people use their TV's incl. big screens like my 65" Mitsu.) so it's a major issue for those looking to go digital front proj. but haven't yet.
If you have to worry about a blub buring out or 30-60 cents an hour to have your video running mainstream public won't go for it, and the fringe already into digital proj. is already covered by lots of good companies and systems.

There's a new light source methods being developed (RF bulbs). Outlaw should get into that area of development and when ready and implemented, would be a shocking intoduction into video projection for them, and could trounce the market like they're doing w/ the 950.

I'd bet any money that they won't though. I'd bet a dig. projector has long been a dead issue for them ever since they said they can't make one good enough for under $10K (when the great Sharp 9000 came out for that exact price a short time later).

They won't get into this area unless they can copy and tweak someone else's basic proj. design , and build it for a lot cheaper. It won't happen. And they won't be able to compete with the rapid price drops in the projector market.

(not like the 950 which is a very typical HT surround sound processor with very little innovation, but has great sound and a super cheap price -which is plenty)

Glad someone read the note. It appears no one is concerned about projectors -well ok only two of us.

No, I'm not kidding. Read your response carefully. First you say I'm nuts, then you proceed to essentially agree with my points on projectors - design, performance, and cost.

The current projectors available are not the same as I outlined. The Infocus ones you mention are data projectors. They make the Screenplay 110, but it is the same as my lower cost projector (as outlined above) and the retail price varies from $4800 - $5000, more than twice the cost necessary (with DCDi chip). Yes, twice the cost, and that is the point. If we are buying over the WEB direct from the manuf., site unseen, the spec's have to be there and the product has to work - without the dealer margin to cover store front and personel cost. Most of the $2500 - $3500 projectors out there are for data, without quality video circuitry, and with a 30-50% dealer margin. Many of the alleged HD ones are 1024x768 previous generation DLP chips and control circuits with the original slow color wheel. Now, I concede that 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i compatibility are all that are needed if the sources are correct, and 720p and 1080i source do not need video correction (except maybe 3:2 pull-down - not realy clear on that), but 90% of the material now and for the next several years will be DVD, and they need it. Correction could be (and must be) in the DVD player for 480p out, but external video processors for $1K - $3K should not be necessary for a good picture.

Review the spec's of available projectors that are close to my outline. The normal price is $10K and above. It's not for some special technology or design (granted the Runco, SIM2, etc, stuff looks nice if Italian design is your thing), but rather for over-head mark-up at the dealer. I assume that most of us who would buy from the Outlaws would not have the dealer person come to the house to plug it in and demo the remote control.

The most important point (and obviously I did a bad job making the case in my original note) is that building a good product that actually meets the specification and ships to customers is a major acomplishment today. Much of the electronic product out in the world today was described in a marketing plan and blown out by volume manufacturers in the East somewhere. When it actually arived at the customer it "kind of" worked OK. If the Outlaws make the projectors I outlined and delivered them for the price, then that would be a big deal - good for Outlaw's customers, and a product that 90% of their competitors do not make.

I meant that projectors like you describe will be coming out from Plus, NEC, and Infocus, all for quickly dropping prices, so I said why don't you just get one of those when they have the right price, meaning you'll get what you want from them and don't need Outlaw to make a similar product.

If you're talking about projector quality as if because made overseas they don't work that well, you're wrong there too.

One,
Outlaw's 950 is made overseas and any projector they'd make would likely me made there too.

Two,
The quality problems with projectors are that the Tex. Inst. DLP micromirrors get stuck, or that the bulb burns out before it's time. Neither is and overseas low production quality element.
Other than that, projectors are all very dependable in any price range from high end to low budget.

Outlaw would need to do something that these other companies CAN'T or DON'T do. Which I doubt will ever happen.

These companies already make the lowest price projectors and the new models use the latest DLP chips and fastest color wheels. The high cost Runco (etc..) companies usually get to these 'state of the art' parts first, but it's not long before the low price leaders get them.

FP sucks anyway. HD RPTVs are cheaper, better quality picture, and far more dependable , user friendly, and long lasting.

One of the revolutionary innovations I mentioned needs to happen to make FP worth while....

RF bulbs, Ambient light deflecting screens, LCoS 1080P chips (for no rainbows and highest res.) that upconvert all signals to 1080P -for the best display of ANY resolution on a large screen (yes, yes, most stuff is 480P, but more and more 1080i HD is becoming available and converted to progressive would be astounding).

Do that for $5K and I'll sell my 65" RP, but it's a pipe dream for now.

All those elements exist though. Fusion Lighting for the bulbs, Three-Five Systems for the LCoS chips, and I forgot the name of the screen company.

Not there yet.

believe me, others are reading this thread ... we just don't know enough about the subject to be able to discuss it knowledgablly. We're just reading in hopes of learning something.

Now ... please continue your discussion.

------------------
pat----

email: pat@sklenar.info ---===--- home page: Grumpy's Lair

I used to own a slide projector. Very nice quality picture, but the frame rate was just too low.

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

Maybe, but I wouldn't bet any money on it. I don't believe "can't", "don't' or "won't" are words they use very often in regards to HT products.

<>

azryan,

Let's not get too carried away. Yes, for your needs, a RPTV was the right way to go, as we discussed above. I'll concede that RPTVs are usually less expensive and user friendly than front projectors.

But picture quality depends on the unit and the environment. And reliability and unit life are different beasts entirely - my Sony RPTV was terribly unreliable, and my PLUS Piano has worked flawlessly. (Of course, my experience could be unique. Or not.) Complaints about minor DLP rainbows have been built into mountains, and I know plenty of folks with dead LCD pixels, but I haven't actually heard of *anyone* with stuck DLP mirrors. (Not saying it doesn't happen, just that DLP seems at least as solid a technology to build on as LCOS or LCD).

The bottom line is that for screen sizes measured in feet, not inches, front projection is an excellent choice. Often, it's the only choice.

-avi

I own a Sony 10Ht Projector, the build quality and picture are excellent. This was a 8,000 dollar product when first released. Now with the price drops one can be had for 3,100. If Outlaw could Deliver a DLP with a better 16x9 big screen picture with HDTV for twice the price I would buy it. I do think that DLP is the furture for home theater. But untill someone can introduce one that can beat my Sony 10ht, I am not interested. Sure there are others out there, like the Sony 11HT that can.

Avi,

First off... Nobody knows how many % of people see 'rainbows' on DLP projectors. There's never been a legitimate test done, and most people have never even seen a DLP projector to comment on it.

My wife saw rainbows like crazy on that Piano (with, as you know, the current fastest color wheel). I saw them somewhat, but not much. Enough to be annoying though.

Maybe the new spiral color wheel TI developed will finally fix rainbows, but who knows, it ain't out yet.

So how am I wrong if you think I am -which you seem to imply, but don't actually say ANY details that would make your case.

You agreed with me that CRT RP's in general are cheaper, and more user friendly.

You must disagree with my other points I guess, so I'll clarify them...

Far more dependable and longer lasting...

Well, ok your Sony RP tanked out early on you. That's not the norm though and you probably know it.
Well over 10,000 hours is typical.

You haven't had your Piano long enough to discuss it's longevity, but let me know when your bulb burns out. The max is 1000 hours, and that sucks IMO, and that's if it doesn't pop early which happens. Careful replacing it too. One fingerprint on the new one and it'll pop instantly.That's a fast way to blow ~$350!

My Mitsu. easily has well over 1000 hours on it, and it's in perfect working order -which is obviously quite common for all CRT RP's.

Also, lots of people have DLP's w/ stuck pixels. Search around on the forums, and you'll see. It's NOT uncommon at all. I hope it doesn't happen to your Piano, but it could. it's just a tiny static elec. shock making each of the hundreds of thousands of micro-mirrors physically move back and forth millions of times. Chances are better that one will get stuck than none ever getting stuck.

I've never seen a DLP RP or FP that hasn't had a stuck pixel othe than the new Piano I had for 10 days.

Sometimes people can get the pixels unstuck, but not usually.

The one you might have the most prob. with is me saying....

Better pic. quality -

Well, obviously the contrast in a room with any daylight will make a digital FP lose easily (CRT FP too, but that's not the point). Most people don't want to watch TV in the dark at all times. Probably somewhere near 99% of people if I had to bet on a number.

Lots of FP owners will use their systems in daylight (say watching a football game w/ friends, etc..) and just accept the washed out picture during that time.

I have a dedicated HT room and total light control, just in case you think I might have stray light in my room that I can't get rid of and makes me anti-FP for that reason.

Some FP owners only use their FP's for movies because of the bulb cost and the 'room must be dark' issue (that's what I was gonna do).

Let's say you have a totally black velvet walled room (very nice decor you vampire!! -heh), and you only compare your FP to a RP in the dark ('cuz we both know it'll flat out lose otherwise)...

Unless you compare FP's way over the price range of the best CRT RP's (the well over $10K JVC LCoS FP's for example), you can't get a pic. as sharp, solid, perfect color, or as high contrast as you can from a high def. CRT RP.

You can get a 'bigger' pic. though, which I already admitted, but 'size' isn't a matter of 'quality'.

In your Piano's case though, it's max 80" dia. size is not much bigger than my 65" Mitsu., and since most likley your screen is against your wall, and my RP screen is 3' in front of my wall, the sizes are probably much less of a diff. than even the small 15" difference looks.

You might be using a larger screen, but you'd easily lose a pic. quality contest if you do that. The Piano isn't bright enough to go bigger than ~80" dia. without degrading the picture.

I know I can get closer to my high-def. Mitsu playing a DVD than you can get to your Piano's screen before I see pixels or other projector system caused artifacts.

That Piano was not better in ANY respect to the 65" Mitu. I bought the following week after I returned the Piano, and for the same exact price.

What's your point of reference as to what's the BEST in picture qual.??

A lot of people say 'a movie theater' since we're usually talking about playing movies on either a FP or RP.

They'd be wrong though (even more-so if they say 'movie theater sound' is a reference point, but that's a diff. topic).

A lot of people say they like FP better 'cuz it looks more like 'film'.

It does look more like a movie theater than a RP image, but that means worse not better pic. quality -something I learned duringthe process of getting the Piano and the Mitsu RPTV.

The point of reference should be (as w/ sound) 'real life sound and vision', but ok, lets step back a little 'cuz no technology's close yet vision-wise (luckily sound's a lot closer), and just say... 'best 2D image'.

That'd be a photograph.

But 'Ah-Hah!" some say... "That's made from film like in a movie theater!", but the photograph itself is NOT film.

In a movie theater, bright light passes through film and is degraded as the light eats away at it and the film wears down.

You don't get that damage w/ a digital FP, so in that respect it's a better reference point than film projection, but it's resolution is currently worse, and room light still bounces back onto the screen washing the picture out.

Say you could take that movie film and instead of blowing it up w/ a bright light, optics, and a reflective screen.... you developed the film into giant screen-sized photographs, and replaced the photos at 24 photos per second.... you'd see the greatest looking movie you've ever seen -the best your eyes would be capable of seeing!

Now I'm just being silly 'cuz you'd never be able to change the photos that fast, but the photos could (in theory) be made at that size, and the point (yes there is one -heh).... is that they would be made "from the original movie film" meaning that projecting that film like a movie theater does is NOT the reference point of picture quality of ANY movie.

It's "how to turn the original negative into the closest thing to a giant photograph".

A CRT RP will be the closest to doing that since the image is projected in it's own box instead of the room always being a flawed projection box in a FP design.

Plus all the other benefits I've already mentioned.

IMO, the best image (that we may actually be able to buy someday not too far away) will eventually be an upconverting 1080P (probably LCoS) digital RP w/ a bulb source that lasts a very long time (which current RP DLP sets already have far longer lasting bulbs than FP's), and an extra high contrast Scramtech screen (see www.scramtech.com for more on that).

Plasma's close, but it's pixel structure sucks (you have to be way too far away before the pixels blend together and then you're blurring the image anyway), and they're waaaay overpriced and have a very questionable life span.

CRT FP is great for movies, but it costs too much IMO, isn't usable in any daylight, and is too dang BIG to set in front of you or hang from the ceiling (for most people).

A HD CRT RP is the current best picture you can get -period.

All of these displays including digital FP blow away any film based movie theater except in size, but again -that's not pict. quality.

DOBEMAN,

I suggest you take note of my remarks about 'point of reference' for future use. No offence, but yours needs a little 'shifting' I think.

You say your Sony 10ht is 'excellent' but you know that the 11ht has been out for quite a while now and you must admit is much better right?

So would you call the 11ht 'super excellent' or what?

I've seen both, and thought the 10ht was very low contrast making it dull, flat and lifeless, and the pixel structure was easily seen from a typical viewing distance and screen size. I thought the 11ht was quite a bit better than the 10, but still had all the negatives of the 10 -just to a lesser degree.

The Piano I owned for a trial period was (is) a better overall picture than both of these. Would that be 'extra super excellent' then?

The store I saw both of the Sonys in eventually got in the Sharp 9000 which I think looks just like the Piano but w/ a higher resolution for a sharper more pixel free image. Should I call that 'ultra extra super excellent'?

My 65" Mitsu looks much better than the Sharp and for thousands less, with no bulb life worries and no pict. quality loss in daylight use.

'Deluxe ultra extra super excellent'?

The only way the Sony 10ht could be called 'excellent' is compared to the other current digital projectors at the time it was first released, and since the Infocus 350 was out at the time for a lot less money and much better picture (if you didn't see the rainbows in it's slow color wheel), I don't think the Sony could have been called 'excellent' for a dig. projector even back then, but it would be debatable enough.

Today, it's not 'excellent' compared to... well... almost anything.

If you use a fixed 'best there is' reference point like real life vision or in more practical 2D use -a photograph for picture quality (and live vocals and instruments for sound quality), then you'll never have to change your description of any products that you describe ever, and more helpful, we'd all be using the same point of reference.

If you compare the 10ht to a photo you'd be hard pressed to call it even a 'so-so' picture.

You could call a CRT RP 'very good' or 'very close' though w/ a high def. feed, and 'good' w/ a prog. scan DVD.

Close behind that for the Sharp 9000 if you have no rainbow problems and in a totally lights out room.

To a lesser extent the Plus Piano and I'm sure the similar Infocus Screenplay if you don't have rainbow problems, and you defocus the lens a tad to eliminate the pixel structure -unless you're so far away that you can't see the pixels at all, but then the screens down shrinks to big screen RPTV sizes.

IMO, the Piano's the minimum level of pic. quality you can get in a large screen display that comes close enough to the reference point of a photograph to be worthy of comparison, and why I waited till it came out to buy a FP, but it just wasn't good enough for me (een if rainbow wasn't an issue).

A CRT RP is much closer to 'photo real', but a little smaller in size (depending on the distance of the seating to the screen).

Something related...

I can't optimally set up my very tall line source front speakers (Newform Research) in my HT room without blocking a screen bigger than ~80" on the wall. Don't want to degrade my audio imaging just to have a little bigger picture by speading out my speakers too far apart -the reason most people think they need a center channel speaker (but that's off topic).

Since the screen of my 65" RP is set 3' in front of that wall, the image at seating is very close to the same size.

I could also see the pixel structure in the farther away Piano from that seat (~16'), and I could sit even closer than the 13' I'm from my Mitsu without seeing any pixels, so I don't even really have a size compromise with the 65" screen.

I'd like an 80" digital RP someday, but I don't think I would be buying something that huge on the internet from Outlaw.

I don't think I would trust the shipping of it by 'Oops'.