Sorry - I certainly didn't intend it that way. Perhaps if when you read a post you consider the possiblity that you're not being insulted and try to envision the possibility that it is intended harmlessly you might find a lot fewer insults. For instance being called 'young' is often merely a reference to age and 'uptight' was only intended as a non-offensive way to acknowledge that I'd accidentally upset you. The other thing, I don't see the cheap shot at all. You're obviously a very sensitive man and I'm sorry to upset you so.

Now I have taken a few shots, for instance the one about looking up the big words. I felt bad right after I did it and I feel worse now. I'm sorry and I'll try to be better.



Of course they won't kill existing product or product lines that are making $$$! But it's pretty obvious which new technology they're betting most of the chips on, and thus trying to perfect/pursue. And don't discount the Koreans, they will be a quality force to contend with soon, as the Japanese already are.



With all due respect Charlie in Oregon and Ryan in Arizona are not going to be consulted on this manufacturing choice. People will buy what is available, and if manufacturers research and make available LCoS, that's what will get bought. If DLP, then that's what will get bought.



Not intentionally implied. How so? I merely stated the non-MEMS part count in 1D systems is proportionally higher and thus the system would not benefit from MEMS research to the same scale as a 2D device, all else equal.



I'm happy to bring a bit of joy to your life. I mentioned it to point out at least two things. First, I believe SL also when they state the ribbons are expected good for 1x10N iterations, just like I believe TI. Also to point out that the hinges on DMD are not the sort of thing humans are accustomed to dealing with in the same way the vibrating ribbons of GLV are not. I struggle with the conflicting desires to be complete and brief, so sometimes I'm too lengthy, sometimes not detailed enough. Sorry.

I have been involved in the process of creating this sort of technology white papers myself and I'm intimately (painfully?) familiar with the proceedure. When you see something like 'expected useful life of 1x10^14 cycles that is a hard number an engineer is pretty sure about. Engineers are very cautious people. When you see 'the blah blah can be easily prevented by blah blah', that is typically verbiage created by marketing to defuse a known issue by promoting a possible solution an engineer dreamed up but has not yet proven to the teams' satisfaction. Once there is proof, rest assured there will be numbers. Be aware that this sort of thing, no matter whose name is on it, is generally written by marketing from engineering docs and interviews, then reviewed iteratively by engineering until the lies are gone and it's still useful to marketing.

The GLV papers I could find had a few solid numbers but mostly looked like they were still pretty 'soft', which indicates (no shock) the technology is still not ready to exit the lab. It may be close, since the papers are often revised or created after the engineering is mostly done.



That looks like an insult. But I don't mind too much - maybe you mean it in a nice way? Dozens are 12xN whith N>=2. I've been to about 10 different stores in the last year (it's been a busy year) and each one had 2-3 DLP systems. The math is pretty simple. I didn't mention it because I understand statistical analysis and know that my individual experience is no more valid for the entire DLP population than any other casually interested DLP viewer. Rather than spout potentially distorted personal viewpoints or opinions as fact I prefer to provide provable or measurable facts. When I mention personal opinion or supposition I try to be careful to use words like 'I suspect' or 'I think' to ensure the reader is clear as to the source of the statement.



I also doubt they break per se, although there is some mention of degraded performance over time which could be the same as breaking for all practical purposes. It looks cool, but Sony is a company with a track record of marketing unique solutions more to be unique than for anything else. There is a lot of money to be made if mini-disk/memory stick/Beta/other proprietary technology ever make a home run.



Well I doubt Sharp engineered, tested and advertized a feature that is of no use. Or is that what you think? Do you think your personal experience makes you more qualified to decide whether the projector needed a set of adjustments than the engineers at Sharp?

The problem with words like 'never', 'always', 'cannot', 'must', 'ever' and others of that ilk is that they are seldom really applicable to real things. The folks I work with must habitually express their ideas in a precise and accurate manner and therefore they only infrequently will use words like the above. Instead words like, 'seldom', 'mostly', etc are used. In cases that are quantifiable of course numbers are better.

So when you say some thing like "...they need no convergence EVER..." or "...3 chip systems have NO convergence adjustments..." or "...the fact that 3 chip designs don't need alignment." it only takes a single concrete fact to prove all those statements wrong.

Now I will say that in most cases it seems that routine re-convergence adjustment is a thing of the past and may be only required at the factory or on infrequent intervals, but to flatly state not only that it needn't ever be done, but also that there is no way to do it is a pretty broad statement that requires extraordinary proof.

http://wwwftp.mmm.com/vsd_partners/8740/8730_40_sm.PDF

See section 1-8, adjusting convergence.

Have a nice day.


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

"Sorry - I certainly didn't intend it that way.- "-and 'uptight' was only intended as a non-offensive way to acknowledge that I'd accidentally upset you."

'Uptight' is always offencive. There's no innocent way to call someone uptight.

"You're obviously a very sensitive man and I'm sorry to upset you so."

Awww c'mon!? Don't act like I'm sitting here in tears or something?
I'm just pointing out that you SAY you don't mean to insult me, but you clearly try to. It's thinly veiled at best.

"I'm sorry and I'll try to be better."

I don't care if you insult me or not. I just point out contradictions like the one above to show where you're coming from.

"Of course they won't kill existing product or product lines that are making $$$!"

Right, and they also won't replace them with costlier/poorer quality systems either.

"-But it's pretty obvious which new technology they're betting most of the chips on, and thus trying to perfect/pursue."

It's NOT clear at all that they're betting on DLP, LCD or any other microdisplay. You pull this non-fact out or nowhere. Just 'cuz they 'try' something new doesn't mean they're betting the farm on it!?

And again, we're mostly talking about historically poor quality companies like Samsung, RCA, and Zenith.
Have you seen a DLP set from Pioneer (makers of the best RP CRT sets)? No.
So they're falling behind leaders like Samsung and Zenith acordingto your logic (or lack there-of)?? Uh... no.

Maybe one day they'll make one or two models and 'test the waters' like these other companies have done, but this still won't make them get rid of the best quality RP displays on the market.
They make some of the best Plasma sets (so when they release something display-wise it's good), but they're still not better than thier CRTs.
I bet behind the scenes they've been working on DLP and other systems too, but unlike crappy companies like Samsung they choose not to degrade their high quality name with poor quality sets. Hard to further degrade a name like Zenith RCA or Samsung.

What these 'market' is totally diff. than what the best quality picture is (the point here).

I don't know how anyone would get ripped off on a plasma set (from ANY plasma maker), but people certainly are out there buying them so follow the money as they say.

Just 'cuz Samsung, etc..'ll sell you their so-so 'test lab' DLP set doesn't mean it's better than a CRT for half the price (which it isn't).

"And don't discount the Koreans, they will be a quality force to contend with soon, as the Japanese already are."

Uh.. ok?? But I didn't say anything about the Koreans -for the record. You're "-and don't discount them" remark makes it sound like I did.

"With all due respect Charlie in Oregon and Ryan in Arizona are not going to be consulted on this manufacturing choice"

Wha-?? Who said we were?? Certainly not me. No idea where that remark came from?

"People will buy what is available, and if manufacturers research and make available LCoS, that's what will get bought. If DLP, then that's what will get bought."

Pointless. You might as well be saying "if someone sells something someone will buy it". The debate should stick to 'quality' not marketing issues. No amount of Bose speakers sold will make them sound good. Same for poor quality DLP sets.

I said -... like when you implied GLV is something diff. than a MEMS system.

You reply -
"Not intentionally implied. How so? I merely stated the non-MEMS part count in 1D systems is proportionally higher and thus the system would not benefit from MEMS research to the same scale as a 2D device, all else equal."

I was only talking about when you implied GLV was something diff. than MEMS, and that's all I said.
You already admitted you were wrong on this point so you must just be confused about this, or maybe you're just trying to confuse any issue that you are wrong about?

"First, I believe SL also when they state the ribbons are expected good for 1x10N iterations, just like I believe TI."

That seems silly to me for you to believe either companies 'data sheets' but do as you please. I'm more inclined to trust the 'data' on the GLV chip based on the way it works but if it comes to market and ribbons break I won't be quoting any 'data' they wrote about how they don't break.

Personally I know TI is distorting the facts since I've SEEN several DLP chips that had bad pixels, and seen lots of other posts/photos of others reporting bad pixels.

I said I never guessed what 'percent' this might be of all DLP's in production, but it's bad enough to scare me away from trusting them.

This pretty much shoots down your '80 years before I have a pixel failure' remark too based on TI's distorted data.

"When you see something like 'expected useful life of 1x10^14 cycles that is a hard number an engineer is pretty sure about. Engineers are very cautious people."

The emperical data I SEE in 'real life' refutes these number 'guesses' in a blatant matter of fact way... no matter how much caution you think TI engineers have.

I've said it before... you rely far too much on this type of 'data' when it clearly doesn't stand true in actual application.
And it's that end result that you SEE from the display (or amp) in question that matters.

That's the ONLY thing that matters. You don't watch white papers, you watch a display. You should know this, but you don't seem to care about this critical point!?

"That looks like an insult. But I don't mind too much - maybe you mean it in a nice way?"

Not really, but then I don't pretend "I didn't mean it" like you do. I assume neither of us are choking back the tears here.

"I didn't mention it because I understand statistical analysis and know that my individual experience is no more valid for the entire DLP population than any other casually interested DLP viewer."

I agree with you on what it 'doesn't mean', but that's not the point... In my case having seen so many pixels is evidence enough that the TI DLP life span data is worthless in real world use.

I don't need to know what percent of chips are bad. It's enough that I know that I've seen several that ARE bad and heard about many more.

Your data can't tell me the DLP system I might buy won't have bad pixels, even though you claim it does (your '80 years before a pixel goes bad'remark).

While my 'data'... SEEING several bad DLP chips is enough to prove to me that it does happen, and at at any time even within weeks (in the case of the latest Samsung set I saw).

My 'opinion' is that it seems to happen enough to scare me away, but take whatever risk you want.

"Rather than spout potentially distorted personal viewpoints or opinions as fact I prefer to provide provable or measurable facts."

Often distorted and/or pointless facts.

"When I mention personal opinion or supposition I try to be careful to use words like 'I suspect' or 'I think' to ensure the reader is clear as to the source of the statement."

The 'trick' is that you usually just spout 'facts' that don't add up. I couldn't refute you if you said you think you'd totally trust a DLP system to never get a stuck pixel. I'd just say there's plenty stuck pixels out there to prove it can happen but good luck trying your luck.

"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.

"Well I doubt Sharp engineered, tested and advertized a feature that is of no use. Or is that what you think? Do you think your personal experience makes you more qualified to decide whether the projector needed a set of adjustments than the engineers at Sharp?"

Try asking actual owners of these systems and find out how much adjustment they need. 'None' will be the typical anwer.

Now go collect this 'practical application data' and ignore 'feature lists' in specific projector models that tell you nothing about it's actual use.

I knew you had no idea so I just said 'None Ever' to get you to drop it as an issue w/ 3 chip projectors. As I always said the main point is that if you don't have to adjust these systems to have perfect color convergence then that 'real world' perfect.

Go try to find people who are adjusting thier 3 chip system panels. You'll be gone along time looking some. Sadly, I doubt you'll try.

"The problem with words like 'never', 'always', 'cannot', 'must', 'ever' and others of that ilk is that they are seldom really applicable to real things."

I frequently use the terms in 'real world use'. I've said this over and over.

Like 'Perfect'... which in your mind is a fictional word, is too me able to be used to mean something 'close enough to perfect in relation to something else' like.... the human eye seeing no pixels at a certain distance I would call 'Perfect' pixel fill.... even though you could walk up to the same screen and get out your micrometer and measure the pixel gaps to refute my claim.

I try to live in the rea world though.

"Now I will say that in most cases it seems that routine re-convergence adjustment is a thing of the past and may be only required at the factory or on infrequent intervals-"

Oh, you might finally see my point though you still pointlessly guess about these 'infrequent intervals'.

"-but to flatly state not only that it needn't ever be done, but also that there is no way to do it is a pretty broad statement that requires extraordinary proof."

Only in your narrow data confinded world. 'Real world' speaking 3 chip convergence ain't an issue.
Drop it or prove it is.
Having adjustments doesn't prove this though.

People actually needing to frequently adjust their projectors would. Try to find some.

Well, here is my original supposition, just based on a knowledge of optics and production line issues:



And you said:



Which turns out to be flat out wrong. I think that pretty much sums it up, omitting the seemingly unavoidable side trips we always seem to take.

As you also stated (and I never disputed) the impact on the current crop of 3 chip LCDs is pretty small, it seems that as far as the end user is concerned they're trouble free. Which is good. I looked a bit and all the high resolution LCD chips were at least 1.3" and in most cases larger. This would mean that the pixels were also larger, making alignment a bit less critical. You assert there are lots of LCDs that are under one inch, but I'm a 'show me' sort of guy. Can you supply a reference to a consumer or professional high resolution LCD projector with LCD devices under one inch? The actual dimension would be a pixel pitch near 0.000055", like the HD2 DMD.

If a device near this pitch has been implemented with good success it would definitely make a solid point WRT the DLP implementations.

This puzzles me:



!?!??!?!



Uptight is not an insult where I live. It wasn't intended as one. I'm sorry to upset you. No, it's not that I'm crying for you or anything, I just try to be a good person, as I stated I'm trying to be better as time passes. Are you always this suspicious of people? I'm pretty trusting and try to see the good by nature most of the time, but I suppose I just had a happy childhood or something.

I another thread you took offense to being referred to as 'young', also not a dirty word here in Oregon. Perhaps you're reading with a negative expectation?

There's lots more, but the point that started this seems to be finally resolved.

Have a nice day!



[This message has been edited by charlie (edited December 02, 2002).]

In case you guys missed this - on the AVS forum (Charlie is right of-course) --

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=196891

Of course all LCD/multi-chip projectors have a convergence adjustment process/mechanism. You may not be able to get to it easy - but it's there.

Oh - sorry - I guess you are way past this little detail.


[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited December 03, 2002).]

Oh - sorry - I guess you are way past this little detail.
Oh I have a feeling you'll be hearing back just give it some time.

JDB:

I was hoping the adjustment was sort of a set it and forget it thing for most of these systems. I've not viewed a lot of 3 chip systems, maybe only 2-4 so my experience with them is very limited. I've never gone looking specifically for a convergence error on any of them, but I certainly never noticed a problem. How common is it to have a visible but not glaring amount of error on these guys in the field? After reading the link it seems like the adjustment is buried pretty deep, which would seem to indicate it is not a routine thing to touch. OTOH the poster didn't seem to understand the difference between an owners manual and a service manual, so his report might not be 100% accurate as to the innards of the beast.

Damn, you guys just don't get the point do you.

Charlie "I was hoping the adjustment was sort of a set it and forget it thing for most of these systems."
You weren't hoping for anything. You outright dismissed 3 chip systems based on you guess that they had convergence errors. I said the don't have any ever to get you to drop this non-issue or to go find out for yourself what the real world problems are. You sadly did neither.

"How common is it to have a visible but not glaring amount of error on these guys in the field?"

This question you as JDB001 who doesn't have any idea. He just pointed you to a link (to a site I've often mentioned for you to go to myself) where one person has some kind of convergence problem and isn't very specific about the details.

You'll find hundreds more posts on stuck DLP chips.

"After reading the link it seems like the adjustment is buried pretty deep, which would seem to indicate it is not a routine thing to touch."

Hmmmm.... that'd be just WHAT I WAS SAYING. It's not meant to be, nor does it need to be user servicable or adjusted.
'Real world' speaking it is VERY rare for convergence to ever need serviced. The chips don't move from the heating and contracting like you guess either.

Now you can say -"Never"!? I just can't believe that. But of course i've already clearly defined what I mean when I speak of absolutes like these, so you can play dumb and say 'See, I was right!", but you're not.

There's just no need for concern at all about 3 chip convergence... esp. compared to all the other real issues we could discuss. But that clearly a real discussion about displays will not ever happen here. What a waste of time.

Oh, and Charile, and I see your post in the HT pic thread speaking favorably about 3 chip DLP.
Obviously it's NOT the 3 chip convergence you've been against.

Oh, and you mentioning LCoS too... something I think you learned about from me here, and you still know next to nothing about.

And how you spoke so favorably about the Pioneer Elite CRTs was really funny since you've been calling CRT old news here over and over, and I made the recent comment about how the Pioneer Elites are the best RP CRT's on the market in this very thread.

Like the last thing you pretended to disagree with me about only to then practically use my exact words as your own elsewhere... I'm sure you'll say you heard this all somewhere else or twist my words around so they mean something else and then say I'm wrong. I've had enough of that from you though.

I'm sure you'll demand the last word on this so say whatever you want. A debate with you is pointless.

I've never dismissed anything. I've always said I was on the 'wait and see' bus. I did say I'm not dead set on 3 chip DLP (or anything else) until it's proven in the field, as I'm concerned about potential issues. I'm tired of being an early adopter. The one chip DLP stuff completely obliterates any realistic chance of misconvergence (which I realy really hate) an so in that respect I like it. The whole idea is kinda Rube Goldberg, but if it works I can live with it. All the FP system and the 65" Mitsubishi HD1 (?) I saw had some rainbows for me. Coupled with the other issues it seemed to me the technology was promising, but not ready for my $$$, thanks anyway.

I really want to see a SCR system with the appropriate light reclaiming technology someday. I suspect that if colorwheels ever catch on it will be this one that does it.



Some English was used in the above statement

I'm not an expert regarding what JDB may or may not know. Sorry it offends you that I ask him a question. I guess this is what you're saying? FWIW I've never noticed any incorrect facts from him, although I have disagreed with a few of his opinions. There's that 'n' word again. Notice I said never noticed, as opposed to, well, you get it.



And I never (!) disputed that although I do like to see quantifiable evidence. I did dispute the incorrect stuff you asserted though. Also the only service manual I read made it clear it was easy to get to those adjustments, plus the poster above didn't seem to understand much technically, so I'm not really sure. It might have seemed deep to him only because he was getting nervous ignorantly digging inside his projector. Not slamming him, BTW. Not everyone is a service tech, we also need salesmen, artists, janitors, etc. to make the world go around.



In respect to the number of times I've examined 3 chip systems for convergence error, sure. So?



Again, not against anything really. I don't like know it all posts that are propagating incorrect information, but it's not a crusade or anything. Just pointing out it's not certain to be 100% roses in 3 chip land. Whether it's better than a goofy spinning wheel I'm not ready to speculate. Time will tell. If the manufacturer is sure something will never (!) need adjusting after initial assembly they will often seal the adjustment. This says something to those who will listen.



Websters has done wonders for the clear exchange of ideas. Try it, you'll like it.



Well, the fact that CRTs are old news is one of the good things about them in my book. As for your comment re Elites, I've been looking (admiring) the Pioneers for a long long time. It's pretty old news too. I thought you were a Mitsu guy?

You introduced me to GLV. Thanks for that.



Most debates are. Discussions are more useful.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited December 05, 2002).]

In case you are interested, here is a web hook to a description of LCOS technology and how Philips does it in some new products

http://www.e-insite.net/semiconductor/index.asp?layout=article&articleid=CA261493&pubdate=12/1/2002

JDB

In case you missed the story

http://www.eet.com/semi/news/OEG20030109S0043

This is news about TI's deal with a large Taiwan semicon. manuf. to build DMDs. (AMKOR Tech.- Taiwan) Can reasonable prices and supply be far behind for DLP projection - front and rear. As I have contended for more than a year there is no reason we will not have 1280x720p projection for <$3000, and full HD projection at 1920x1080i (or 1080p) by the end of the year for less than $4000. In a nice < 10 LB package about 8"x11"x3" - wouldn't it be nice. Several new products were shown last week at Winter CES in LV. I'm sure the Outlaws are on to this. Just "DO IT!"


[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited January 13, 2003).]