DLP projector

First of all, I hope that Outlaw goes through with their plans for a DLP projector. We need a good affordable HT projector on the market.

A great place for finding info on what users are looking for is www.avsforum.com in the DLP,LCD, D-ILA projectors forum.

Look at the topic:

NOTICE: NEW OUTLAW HT DLP projector-high quality & low price point!

Here's a quick list that was put together a couple of weeks ago by a forum poster:

Excellent de-interlacing and scaling (HTPC quality would be fine)
No clear section on the color wheel
High speed color wheel (4-6x)
Accurate colors
Long Bulb life (4000hrs. min.)
800:1 or better contrast (w/ good black levels)
1000-1500 lumens (pre calibration)
Optical Keystone Correction
16:9 XGA or higher resolution
User definable gamma curve (with enough adjustments to make it useful)
Component Video inputs
DVI or Firewire inputs

Also, take a look at the InFocus HT DLP projector at www.infocushome.com It has an external switch box with just a single signal cable running to the projector.

Finally, $3000 would be a great price point.

If 16x9 panels are going to be too scarce for a year or so, how about an integral anamorphic lens mount? Some kind of hinged housing surrounding the actual lens which will swing the anamorphic lens over it when needed.

And if you're going to have a 16x9 imager, then you need a special mode in the scaler that will pull out the middle 360 lines in a 2.35 anamorphic DVD, scale them precisely by 2, and produce a 720p 1.85 to 1 image; then adding an anamorphic lens will produce a 720 by 800 Cinemascope image that's just a little too wide. Still, it should be artifact-free.

Oh yeah, one more thing.

Make sure to use a good scaler like the Silicon Image Sil 503. If you can get it to scan at greater than 60 fps, that'd be good too.

-phil

Given that some (many?) people have external scalers/HTPC's, does it really make sense to add a lot of cost with a great internal scaler? I believe that most people with external scalers would not want to have to pay anything for an internal scaler that they're just going to bypass.

Maybe make the included scaler external, and optional?

Outlaws: I think you have an excellent mission statement for a new home theater projector. Here are my thoughts. I'm not sure what you actually mean by "affordable system price". I guess it depends on the market you are trying to tap. If it's the same market as the one your 1050 receiver is aimed at I would expect an affordable price would be the 3-5k range. The consumer profile would be someone who wants to be able to display DVD's at their best resolution and display HDTV at the "common" resolutions. Now, I'm going to ruffle some feathers, but here goes. The projector should not require "add-ons" to get this quality. HTPC's, external scalers, anamorphic lenses are the tools of hobbyists and serious enthusiasts. They represent a niche market. The best analogy I can think of would be the difference between those that buy a receiver and those that buy monoblock amps, preamps, tuners, etc. If your market is those that buy receivers, then the projector should be "plug & play". Those are my thoughts and I look forward to more information as it becomes available.

[This message has been edited by David James (edited March 19, 2001).]

How does the Infocus DLP projector
compare to a Mitsubishi HTDV rear-projection
TV? (Since they cost about the same)

My comments on above "projector wish lists". $3,000 is IMO unrealistic for a first-rate projector. $7,000-$8,000 would probably be more attainable, even still a bit optimistic at this stage of the digital projector evolution. If a cheap projector is what you're looking for, there are plenty on the market already (and several soon to be even cheaper with the next-generation projectors starting to appear).

As mflaster stated, a packaged external processor is the way to go; allowing all connections at the equipment rack and providing for one-stop/plug-n-play shopping. Make the projector available "solo" for those who already have a substantial investment in a processor (broadening your customer base too).

As for projector noise, don't the manufacturers listen to their customers... or their projectors? How many projector owners do you know that are NOT concerned about projector noise? Not very many I'd guess. Some just accept it as unavoidable, but many spend hundreds of dollars tweaking and building hush boxes to muffle it. This should be designed in, not an option that gets cuts from the budget to meet a price-point. Surely it cost less to design it in than it does for the customer to tweak on his own.

Same goes for "light-leakage". A projector that leaks light out the front vents is severely flawed. C'mon guys, this is sloppy and unacceptable.

Personally, I own a RPTV because (5 years ago) it was the only affordable option (and FPTVs were not). I'm listening and learning a lot about FPTV thanks to forums like this and AVS. I'm now convinced that FPTV is definitely in my home theater future. Just waiting for that perfect deal.

Keep telling the manufacturers what we want, and eventually they'll get it (and get my business) right . Thanks

One would think (at least this one thinks) that active noise cancellation would be an ideal technology for quieting projectors.

For those who haven't heard of active noise cancellation it is, in a nutshell, a microphone that listens to the ambient noise, a little dsp that basically produces and inverted copy of the ambient noise, and then a speaker to emit the inverted copy of the noise. The net effect is that the noise is cancelled out.

Pilots have been using ANC headsets for years to cancel the engine and air noise while in flight. ANC works best in two cases, placing the cancellation close to the ears (as in the headset itself) and when placed at the source of noise itself. This second case would be ideal for a noise projector - most of the noise would be emitted from the cooling vent(s), so placing the ANC at the vent would kill the noise at its source.

I'll get shot full o' holes for this, but here goes: don't do a projector. That project will drain your resources unless you just develop a set of specs and get the major manufacturers to bid on it and then you do an O.E.M. deal and have them take one of their models, tweak it to your specs and re-badge it with your logo. Even that will require major resource dedication. I know: my company has done this for a few years and we are developing some advanced proprietary projectors of our own currently. Our market is the meetings and presentations market, not home theater, but I'm involved daily and I think your resources would be better spent (with better return) focusing on the audio portion of HT, where you've been so successful. I look forward to your pre/pros!

I understand Outlaw was showing a DWIN projector at the Home Entertainment Expo. I assume this means that Outlaw is teaming up with DWIN on the Outlaw projector. That's probably a good sign since the Transvision has gotten good reviews by users.

Too bad it was a 4:3 aspect ratio. I hope that the final product will be a 16:9 native DLP panel. I'm holding out for a projector that will be able to do HDTV native.

-phil

I just read your news that your projector will be 10k. You also comment that the quality you demand requires that price. I'm not a projector guru but I have spent the past year reading about projectors and have come to conclusion that excellent projectors are available today for 4-8k. Have you spent any time reading the various web sites about projectors http://www.avsforum.com or http://www.thebigpicturedvd.com. Very Very few of the projectors discussed on those forums run 10k today and with Sony, Selco, Infocus, among others putting out new models in the next few months I can't imagine what is behind your decision, it's certainly inconsistent with your otherwise excellent strategies with your audio products. The best analogy would be like pricing your 1050 at about $1,200

$10K? Don't do a projector then. Who's the target market? The mass market is for RPTVs, and for those folks looking for a bigger picture/smaller box, portable business projectors are more than acceptable. They range from $3-5K. The volume provided by the business market keeps the cost down and the quality constantly improving. There's really no way Outlaw is going to compete here with InFocus or NEC, and they admit as much. That's fine.

Home theater enthusiasts willing to pay more for 16x9 LCD or DLP will go for Sony's new LCD projector, coming out later this year (basically, the 10HT with dramatically improved contrast and a much improved scaler). That'll retail for $7K at most (and possibly less on the street). Yamaha's new $10K (retail) DLP projector is in this space, too, and the street price will probably drop pretty quickly there too. So even if the Outlaw 16x9 DLP is slightly better somehow, at $10K street, it's not an Outlaw-style bargain by any stretch of the imagination.

So who's left? Home theater nuts willing to pay anything for the best image? They're still going to go for a 9" CRT. A $10K DLP has setup, size, and cost advantages, but if that matters, buy the Yamaha or Sony.

-avi

10K???....Puh-leeeez!
The outlaws are the masters of value, right?! So go do your thing!
Oh yeah, 16:9 IS a must. Quiet as well. I'm not convinced that the Outlaws can beat those competitors at their own game though.

I am trying to decide right now if I should purchase a DLP projector and here are my ideas....

Since this is for permanent installations you don't have to worry about making it light weight.

Build the unit in two pieces. The projector, a small box that will hang from the ceiling or require minimal table space. A "control" box that handles the different inputs, processing, power supplies. Connect the two digitally so high quality cables are not an issue.

Please no hokey remote control and no 5 watt speaker. This isn't for power point presentations....

Choose a lamp that is affordable to replace.

Since InFocus has new DLP projectors in the $4,000 price range I expect that you can beat this price!

HDTV capable High rez. (not ~800 x 600) true 16x9 panel DLP with little to no rainbow effect (the color wheel design and speed is key here) and accurate color.

Gray scale, contrast, and black level should be as optimum as possible.

Full user settings for professional level adjustments.

Digital keystone correction.

Good throw distance adjustments.

A user screen area adjustable 2.35:1 "anamorphic" scaler mode for all input sources (even HDTV) (with memory settings for focusing, zooming, settings etc. along with it) so that a 1.78:1 anamorphic lens could be added that would allow 2.35:1 ratio movies to be shown using all of the pixels on the panel for added brightness (and perceived clarity) on a real scope ratio screen (I'd much rather have a constant height, variable width front projection system just like the movie theaters). If the scaling algorithm is advanced enough, this could work on 2.76:1 super-wide epics too (in a 2.35:1 frame).

The Sanyo PLV-60 16x9 LCD projector has this 2.35:1 squeeze feature (although in primative form), but crops part of the sides of the image off, won't let you shift the image up slightly (or down depending on the actual telecine framing of the film) before adding this feature (because some subtitled 2.35:1 movies have their typing pushed into the lower black letterbox bar even on anamorphic DVDs and HDTV broadcasts-- see Crouching Tiger as an example-- the words would be cut off when using this feature), and won't work with HDTV or high rez. signals (only 480i and 480p), and no memory settings.

The newest Faroudja/SAGE de-interlacer chip. Let's face it, most digital projectors have lousy de-interlacers included that add grain, artifacts, and pixelization to the image.

Allow an HTPC or outboard scaler to use the full panel resolution on all inputs.

RGB, component, FireWire, and DVI video inputs with upgradeable boards for when the CEA and the MPAA finally hash out a copy protection and digital video interface standard.

If you have both have upgradeable FireWire (the newest, highest bandwidth variety, which is backwards compatible) and DVI connections, you're set. If you only have one or the other or none at all, then the potential for premature obsolescence increases significantly.

The design of the box must not have light leakage, be properly ventilated with quiet fans, and have adaquate dust and lint control.

Etc. Etc.

------------------
Down with the MPAA!!


[This message has been edited by Dan Hitchman (edited June 25, 2001).]

Hey Guys (Outlaw Audio)

I hope you're reading these posts. I have to agree with the others. $10K will price yourselves right out of the market.

If infocus produces the box that is rumored ($5K, 1280x720 DMD, external Faroujda scaler/selector) you guys won't stand a chance.

-phil

If infocus produces the box that is rumored ($5K, 1280x720 DMD, external Faroujda scaler/selector) you guys won't stand a chance.

Not a rumor, you can see it on their webpage. Check out the Infocus LP530!

Why DLP? I know that the market is saturated with LCDs and they don't look that good to begin with; but to me, DLP just looks like a mechanical failure waiting to happen. Stuck pixels and free-spinning colorwheels DO happen on these things. Is JVC asking too much to license D-ILA? If so, I recommend you guys stay out of the projector market. You might look into a good video interface/scaler ala Communication Specialties (a lot more versatile than a line doubler/quadrupler) instead. Just my opinion.

I think I would agree with the sentiment that 10K is waaay too high. At that point Outlaw is on the same pricing tier as Runco...and Runco will bury Outlaw in that market segment.

More to the point, I doubt any current Outlaws would buy one...so why bother building a projector that is outside the range of your target demographic?

By continuing down this $10K track it appears that you actually aren't listening to your potential customers unless you think we're pairing current outlaw offerings with Runco projectors.

I'd be really surprised that if you surveyed all your customers that you'd find any with Runco equipment in their setup.

Nigel

How about the newest black level enhanced true HDTV resolution (720p-- hopefully full 1080p if available in the near future), full 1.78:1 widescreen panel DMD chips by Texas Instruments?

The best Faroudja/Sage de-interlacer and scaler chips so that you get the smoothest upscaling or downscaling to the panel's native resolution. That has been a big weakness in most digital projectors: a poor internal scaler, interpolator, and de-interlacer stage.

Accept 480p and other already progressive scan scaled & processed signals.

Accept native 720p and 1080i signals-- even 1080p.

RGB inputs that have access to the full resolution of the chip for use with a Home Theater PC. Gold plated component, S-Video, and composite inputs.

No pixel cropping and allow for a setting of zero overscan.

DVI and FireWire digital video inputs compatible with the latest copy protection signals. Might as well be prepared for the worst.

Full user adjustable controls.

2.35:1 anamorphic scaling on native 1.78:1 ratio material (and fully adjustable vertical picture shifting compatibility for those pesky subtitles that fall into the lower letterbox bar) for all signal inputs (including HDTV) so that an outboard 1.78:1 anamorphic lens (like the ISCO II which stretches the image back out) could be used in conjunction with the projector. This would allow for a constant height, variable width 2.40:1 front projection screen, and allow the full brightness of the DMD chip to be used for 2.35:1 and wider movies with proper geometric proportions. Memory settings for focus, picture shift, pincushion, barrel distortion, keystoning, etc. for this particular feature.

Digital pincushion, barrel distortion correction (helpful with outboard anamorphic lenses), and keystoning corrections for all settings.

Electronic, power focusing and zooming.

Wireless remote.

Video adjustment setting memory for each video input.

Vertical and horizontal picture shifting adjustments in case outside video source syncing doesn't center the picture correctly.

Detachable lens assemblies for aftermarket upgrades or different lens throw needs. However, the stock lens and assembly should be of the highest quality.

The best, efficient lamp house and long lasting bulb available. Sell replacement bulbs at a cut rate price and you'll have people flocking to you.

Extreme quality control. Dust blobs, lint, etc. have been problems with most digital projectors. Have a no dead or stuck pixel policy.

High quality air filtration system and super quiet fan.

No light leakage.

If you can do it for a retail price between $5,000 - $7,000, that would really put a hurt on other manufacturers and help us home theater enthusiasts out who want to move up to a super deluxe front projection system.

Dan



[This message has been edited by Dan Hitchman (edited September 02, 2001).]

What we need is the new SIM2 HT300 projector for reasonable money, but loose the goofy case and cost. Focus on performance, small, and no special frills. Just deliver raw HD on the screen, 4X color wheel, hi-performance. video conversion, "touch-up" remote for focus (mainly manual), reasonable life bulb, 3 video inputs (component, S, composite), NO audio in projector, NO PC input, anamorphic options extra cost at later date. Initial cost less than $4K.

As many others have stated, 10K is just too much for most people.
I think Outlaw's amp, receiver, and other proposed 'new' products are all along the lines of creating a rep. for high value products that also have an outstanding base level of quality.
A 'high value' projector along these lines would be under $5K tops.
16:9 native (-duh), have a sepp. hi-qual. scaler/input module (avail. as projector only or an Outlaw combo deal for plug-n-play people and HTPC tweakers), with one digital cable run to the projector.
Only equaling the contrast and brightness levels of current systems under $5K would be good enough.
Obviously 500:1 or 1500 lumens isn't perfect, but that's plenty good enough for a budget high quality system. We can't ask for everything and still want it to be 'budget', but most of us WILL ask that it be 'budget'.
Three-Five Systems makes a LCoS chip that's can do 720P. A later model could use their newest chip that can do 1080P!
I've seen too many stuck DLP pixels to trust them enough. LCoS (like JVC, Three-Five, Displaytech uses) sounds like the far cheaper than DLP, yet equal quality route.
Lastly, bulb life is a huge concern since that'll double to triple the cost of a budget projector.
I just read that a company is gonna be using one white CRT tube as a light source to get a 25,000 hour 'bulb' life. If that's true (you know rumors) and'll work... uh... use that!
Since portability shouldn't be a concern with most of us looking for a perfect budget F.P., a fairly smallish, fairly light 25,000 hr. CRT-as-light-source system wouldn't be at ANY disadvantage to a 3.3 pound portable with only 1000-2000 bulb life.
-Or if white LED as a light source is possible, look into that. Though I think that one's waaaaay down the road (for now).

Outlaw has a chance to jump into this segment at the begining. CRT F.P. has always been too costly and huge for most people, and the microdisplay systems are still almost all designed for buisness use. Yamaha, JVC, InFocus, NEC... they're all just starting to take a crack at the huge home F.P. market. Beat 'em to it!!
Don't let people here discourage you from doing this, saying, -"$10k... then don't do it!".

Under $5K, you can do it!

-sermon ends

Looks like www.fusionlighting.com has the solution to the light source question! If they're far enough along to get to the production stage???
Super bright electrodeless sulfer/argon filled quartz spheres excited by radio frequency. They say a golfball sized 'bulb' is as bright as 100 100W bulbs!?! WOW, and lasts at least 10K hours!!
No fan. No light leakage. Tiny, and super bright. Mate that to 3-5 system's 1200x1920 3-chip RGB microdisplay solution, and you'll have everything everyone ever wanted!!

Remember back in June when I said that $10K is just too much for a projector? In the meantime, the NEC LT150 business projector (often recommended for home theater by the folks on http://www.avsforum.com) dropped to under $2,500 online, Sharp introduced the Z9000u which sells for under $10,000 at RETAIL, and Plus started selling the HE-3100 Piano for $3,000 direct. I bought a Piano; my review is at http://www.greengart.com.

-avi

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited December 26, 2001).]

Setting the scaler externally should not be a big issue, since many companies like Runco are doing that. What Outlaw should do is stuff the Faroudja DVP-5000 into their $3k projector, and got to get that 1920x1080 DLP chip, or else you would be wasting that scaler.

With the success of the panasonic ae100, NEC LT150, and the piano projector I think it may be time to start thinking a DLP is not that far out of reach anymore. Who knows in 6 months? This is something I would love to see.

That Pannie's LCD I think, and has some minor pixel screendoor issues.

I bought the Plus Piano when they had thier 10 day full refund trial offer. Glad I did it then, 'cuz I saw rainbows with it. Not much, but they were there. My wife saw them like crazy. And I didn't mention the 'rainbow' effect to her 'cuz I heard people have a better chance of seeing them if they know to look for them.

Sound&Vision declared this proj. 'rainbow free' in the issue that came out the same week we got it. Wrong again you morons. And this was the fastest DLP color wheel out at the time (maybe still the fastest?).

The image quality was great sitting at about 2.5x screen width. I defocused the lens just a hair to give me zero screen door effect.
Watched Moulin Rouge (sp?) on it. Silly MTV video movie IMO, but looked GREAT -minus the rainbows and not true black blacks (the room had white walls at the time, but zero lights on).
The B&W classic Citizen Kane looked very good on it too.

Sent it back (the rainbows drove my wife nuts, and they would've probably annoyed me a lot more over time too) and spent the same exact 3 grand on a Mitsu 65" HD-RPTV.

Far better black level /contrast, no huge bulb costs to think about, full HD resolution, looks far better in daylight, Zero pixels at ANY normal distance, and since it's ~3' closer to our couch than the 80" screen (we had attached to the wall) I used for the Piano, the picture's not really much smaller than the Piano's either.

Note, you can use as big a screen as you want w/ thePiano, but Plus says 80" for best picture and because of the low light output I wouldn't degrade the picture just to make it bigger in my opinion either.

The same Moulin Rouge DVD looks a tiny bit less filmic on the Mitsu (probably because of the better contrast rather than for any real negative reason). The black level has much more depth, and I don't have to plunk a quarter into the 'bulb jar' every half an hour like I would have to do with the Piano.

Projectors need to have the brightness to handle a very large screen and moderate daylight use, very long bulb life, great black level, and HD resolution in a price that rivals the current HD-RPTV's on the market. It can't be done yet.

I wanted a digital proj. for a looong time, but by the time the price came down and the performance grades went up (in the form of the $3K 80" screen Plus Piano) it still couldn't beat the $3K HD CRT RPTV I ended up with a few days after the Piano got shipped back.

Now I want an 80" digital microdisply RPTV next (be it DLP, LCoS, or whatever)!
Pretty huge black box width and height-wise, but should be pretty shallow depth-wise and fairly light.

It could even be a 'tabletop' style model -meaning that you could use your own stand for it which could be equiptment shelves for extra great use of space.
Bulb life should be really good compared to CRT life, and it should be great in daylight use just like any RPTV is.

Probably not a very good internet sold product though for Outlaw. I think I've given up on front proj. though at least for now, it's still playing catch-up unless you want to spend a LOT of dough or live with a LOT of compromises.

BTW, I wrote a 'Piano: six month's later' column in addition to my original review; both are available at http://www.greengart.com/askavi.htm .

Azyran,

Sorry to hear you're so sensitive to rainbows. Most people aren't.

But even so, I also considered a RPTV before buying a PLUS Piano. In my case, I simply couldn't fit a RPTV larger than 53" down the stairs to my basement home theater. My choice: either upgrade my analog 53" RPTV to an equally sized HD-capable RPTV, or keep the analog model and supplement it with an 84" (4:3) screen and projector. The size difference there is enormous, and when it comes to involvement / suspension of disbelief / losing yourself in the movie ...size matters.

In terms of Outlaw, I just can't see how they can play in this space. Later this year PLUS and InFocus are expected to release home theater projectors based on TI's HD2 chipset - 720p, better blacks, better contrast, brighter - in the $6~7K range. One (or both) of those companies may OEM them for a major consumer electronics brand for sale through big box retailers. 480p units (the PLUS Piano and InFocus ScreenPlay) currently sell for $3-4K, and might go down in price further with HD2 versions. The PLUS unit has wonderful ergonomics, and both of them were designed with home theater performance in mind.

So how could Outlaw compete?

To provide their usual value proposition, Outlaw would have to hit insane price targets for a 480p unit - basically, they'd have to sell an Outlaw Piano for $2K, and an Outlaw Sharp 9000 for $4-5K. Even if they did, PLUS and InFocus have the economies of scale, capital, and Internet distribution model to compete with Outlaw on price. Nobody else could, though, because everyone else has dealer margins to protect. So if Outlaw can hit those price targets - and I SERIOUSLY doubt they can - they can play the digital projector game. Otherwise, I think you'll see them sit on the sidelines until some new technology comes along that changes the rules of the game. Maybe 1080p LCOS, or something else 18 - 24 months out.

-avi

------------------
Sr. Product Marketing Manager looking for new position to pay for home theater gear. Leads? Questions? AskAvi@Greengart.com. Thanks.

[edited for html syntax error]

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited May 09, 2002).]

Thanks for the 950
It was welcome respite from the winter in Chicago a few months ago to get Outlaw News on the 950 in January, February, March, and April on the progress toward shipping the 950. I was on the list, but not near the top I assumed, since I did not register until later on registration day. (But that is OK according to my wife because it saves the AmX card from inevitable pain.) I found it somewhat amusing over the past few months reading many of the comments on the forum. It seems that a number of the Outlaw customers are in need of a support group as their lives seem to be too closely linked with the delivery of a new video control preamp albeit a well made and finely engineered one (I am sure). I also sense that most have never designed or manufactured anything either. Since I was also waiting for sources in China (delayed by the New Year) to deliver crucial component parts of a new electronic systems (not in the high-fidelity audio market) for introduction in a couple months, I understood completely the situation. The decision to make the 950 correct before shipping was the right one, and I am sure the Outlaws will be rewarded in the end for the delay.

I received my 950 last week. It’s installed and running just fine. I am still learning the ins’ n outs of operation and expect that to continue for several weeks. The 950 looks good and sounds good, and I expect that to be the case for several years to come. I claim the 950 technology meets the application requirements at 90% for 90% of the home systems out there for at least the next 3 years if not 5 years. The Outlaws are not addressing the 10% fringe who would pay 4 to 5 times the cost for 10% improvement in performance, i.e., the “more money than sense” crowd. Frankly speaking, the audio chain is not the problem for the cinema experience in the home - may be 10 years ago, but not now.

What the World Needs now:
But the 950 is not my reason for writing this note, rather it is to jog The Outlaws and the forum on the progress towards a cost effective and high quality video projector. I have noticed that interest on the forum for this subject has waned, but I must assume that this is still in the Outlaw “headlights” as eminent. Oh yes, and Outlaw's, do not listen to the complainers about announcing product in advance of shipping. Many of us can plan and wait, and we appreciate the heads-up info. (i.e., we are grown-ups). It would be great interaction, as it was for the 950 to keep your past and future customers informed as to the progress of new product. The “whiners” on the fringe are useful but not the benchmark for product planning. I remember fighting for Laser disc in the 80’s when the world was enamored with VHS, so whiners are useful in the long run.

The 90% market needs presentation products that address the current home theater AV sources, which are primarily over-the-air and cable NTSC that at best are EDTV, the coming HDTV, and pre-recorded DVD sources as 480p. These are the sources now and for the next 3 years at least. Satellite is growing but will never be more than 30% of the market if the majority of their broadcast do not delivery more zing in performance (and content to some extent) than cable. Blue-Ray and D-VHS are nice but not relevant until at least the 2005-2007 time frame. Gary Reber and WSR have placed considerable promotion behind D-VHS, and no doubt it’s a fine example of the great engineering that JVC has become known for, but it is not relevant until the price drops to at least $599 for the deck and parity with DVD for the source (disk). There are several “as good as needed for the source” DVD players out there in the $200 - $400 price range. A much higher price for a terminal source such as DVD is questionable. Smart money does not need cast aluminum frames, fancy feet, and esoteric materials for DVD. But what 90% of videophiles do need are a couple cost effective projectors. For a real home theater experience, the picture needs to be projected from the front, meet very good performance standards for the next 5 years, be reasonably priced, and be small in size as compared to the majority of today’s solutions. I believe the outline below states what is needed.

And Now the Details:
With a new projector in mind, I would like to suggest my product proposal again (from last years correspondence) as follows (A.K.A., 20 points to video happiness):
1. Use DLP as the digital-to-optics core
2. Build two projectors with the same base/motherboard for electronics
3. Use the same optics front-end for both projectors
4. Use a low-cost bent metal chassis as the primary element for stability and cost
5. Weight under 20 lbs. for both projectors, 10 – 12 lbs. would be the best
6. The lower cost unit should use the 848x600(480ip) DMD and the other uses the 1280x720p DMD
7. Use the new TI chipset for control (HD-1 and HD-2?)
8. Both should use at least the 6 segment 4x speed color wheel at 240 Hz equiv. Or greater
9. Lens with focus and throw for 8’ – 18’ from screen with 60” – 100” diagonal
10. On screen selectable 4:3 or 16:9 with letterbox and super letterbox wide screen loosing scan lines (not the best, but a cost effective compromise)
11. At least 800 L on the screen and 600:1 contrast for all video sources
12. Use the Faroudja DCDi chip for progressive scan from DVD
13. 3:2 pull-down option (part of the DCDi) for cinema
14. Manual focus standard, remote control an option
15. Sync to 480i, 480p, 720p, and 1080i for NTSC and HD video input
16. Inputs selectable on remote (optional) as composite, S-video, and component/RGB (the first and third on quality RCA jacks)
17. Don’t worry about computers, they have plenty of projectors to work with, so no computer interface please
18. Don’t make a projector for only the rich videophiles and zealots, they also have enough to choose from (i.e., Runco, etc.)
19. Forget about the DVI interface for the next three years (but maybe as a future retro-fit option on the better projector), 10% of the 25 million + DVD players out there could care less (as a potential customer pool)
20. Target DVD 480p, over-the-air EDTV and HDTV broadcast, normal S-VHS, a handful of direct satellite channels, and maybe D-VHS by 2004 if the price comes down.

Explanations:
The list above enumerates the important elements; all others that impact cost are unjustified features. The retail price from The Outlaws (direct) for the smaller unit should be $1900 - $2200, and for the second, higher resolution unit, it could be $3400 - $3800 for the initial rollout. More than this cost will not be market relevant now or over the long run. The smaller unit would be primarily for the DVD crowd while the (barely) HD unit is for over-the-air/satellite/digital HD tape video sources. SIM2, Runco, and others announced new projectors a few months ago (and apparently started deliver recently) retailing at $10K and $15K using the above components. They cannot have any market impact at that cost level, and represent limited perceived value to the consumer. I have seen both and the Yamaha and Sharp projectors – they are not worth the usual $10K+ asking price. I would stick with DLP since it looks like LCOS technology cannot ship unless the cost is much higher and the performance is lower than anticipated. (No one can apparently make LCOS with sufficient process yield.) Do not worry about multiple lense choices or super high performance – remember the source. (There is no true anamorphic source material on DVD - for example - that I know of.) If we can get at least 500+ line horizontal video resolution on the lower cost projector and 1000+ lines on the better unit on the screen, then they will considerably more value for the price than available now. These relatively small and straightforward projectors cannot cost 4 times the price of big furniture boxes, mirrors, and CRT RPTV boxes with essentially 50-year-old technology. Well that’s the outline – any comments.


[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited May 21, 2002).]

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'.

Azryan,

Hello again!

I'm still not convinced that RPTVs are more reliable than FP. (And limited bulb life is an ongoing cost issue, not a reliability problem.)

I've done the research, and I found that stuck DLP mirrors are the exception, not the rule.

I agree that if you're going to watch TV with lights on, a RPTV is almost always a better choice than a FP (no matter how bright/what technology is being used). Plasma is a good choice here as well.

I'm not convinced 80" RPTVs are all that practical - to stock, to sell, to transport, and to dominate a home. Even a 65" set is considered too big for most multi-purpose rooms (living rooms, family rooms, etc.) by the other 51% of the population.

Stop arguing with me and go watch a movie!

-avi

I know you like your Piano, and feel the need to defend it, but you're just not doing it very well.
It's a great projector if you don't see rainbows, you never ever want to watch something with any lights on, you don't mind paying over and over again for new bulbs, and you don't want to see high def broadcasts, or how sharp and pixel free DVD's look on an HD set.

If people have space for an ~80" FP screen, then they have space for that same screen to be ~2' in front of the wall in the form of a 80" RPTV -look up Scramtech screens.

They'll produce a far better pic than current RP screens, and allow a far shallower depth in a RP cabinet by their tremendously innovative design.

I hope companies start implementing this screen ASAP!

Probably less than 2' deep even for an 80" screen!

And a microdisplay RP (DLP or other)is a FAR lighter system than a CRT based design, and an 80" RP wouldn't weight more than a typical 32" direct view set.

Not that you mentioned weight being a negative for RPTVS, but I thougt I'd hold you off by mentioning it myself since I know it's also an issue for some people.

And a huge digital RPTV wouldn't need to even be a floorstanding design like all large CRT based RP's need to be.

Yes, there's people who can't fit RPTV's into their houses (or wifes won't let them), but those people don't buy FP either, unless they're typically very well off and buy motorized roll-up screens that cost faaaar more than your Plus Piano.
Those people would never be using a projector that's cheaper than the screen.

Your case of HT in the basement isn't common either, but you could fit a 80" RP in your room I'm sure -even if you couldn't get it down the stairs.

I don't see how you think you made your point at all on RPTV's not fitting? Maybe if you were more specific.

That 80" digital RPTV I described would look far better than you Piano, shouldn't cost any more than your Piano, have a super long bulb life (10,000 hours or more just using a conventional design like in your Piano), and since it'd be a little closer to your seating than a FP screen against the wall, it'd be a bigger picture than widescreen DVD's are on your 84" 4:3 screen.
You're 16:9 area is only about a 70" 16:9 screen! How are you thinking your picture is so huge compared to mine?

I had my Piano set to 16:9 on an 80" screen. That'd be bigger than what you have, and IMO about as small as a FP screen should ever be to make it worth all the compromises.
Size is the only factor (and not a factor that I disregard) where FP is king.

Heck, my 65" widescreen (3' out from the wall) isn't hardly any smaller than your picture when watching 16:9 (or wider) material.

What's your seating distance to screen? Mine's 13'. I bet we end up having about the same size screen when you do the screen size to distance math.

I won't debate you thinking bulb life is not a reliability issue. That just a matter of opinion of a loose definition.

The point though is that you don't know when that sucker will go pop, but you know it will go pop, and you know it will go pop when in use (probably during a movie if that's what you use the FP for mostly), and the replacement will cost you over $300, and will go pop at some unknown time too, and so on and so on.

All the while my CRT will likely have zero problems.
That's fine, I don't have to label it a reliability issue if you disagree, it's enough for me to just call it far far better functionality.

And don't worry I do watch movies. Several every week and ALL of them for free from my local library.

Just saw Harry Potter (that'd be a couple days after it was released). It sucked. Glad I don't pay rental fees.

Awful acting (no excuse that they're kids -there's decent child actors out there), and the director tried to put a little of every single thing that was in the book into the film, but didn't have the time (in the overly long film as it is) to really expand upon almost anything.

Tons of tiny details, instead of really spotlight the important main story elements.

Oh well, the book wasn't very good either. Just a typical children's story.
The third and fourth books are far better -maybe if they end up making those films those kids will learn to act by then.

Horrible CG effects too. Very fake. And many scenes had a very poor pic. quality on the DVD -so it wouldn't look good on ANY display.

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix.

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

duplicate post fix.

Maybe Scott can delete these.

Stupid library comuter didn't display my post so I kept redoing it.

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited June 02, 2002).]

You could always use the edit button to remove the text and just drop a short explanation in lieu of the full post.

I have the same problem frequently at home -- I post, but it does not show up. Hitting the refresh button fixes that. For some reason when they redirect you back to the post page the browser doesn't always reload.

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

If Samsung's HD2 DLP-based RPTVs I saw at the Home Entertainment 2002 show are a good indication, the contrast and black level of TI's HD2 chips are markedly improved. While there, I met with senior marketing managers from PLUS, InFocus, and TI. PLUS and InFocus are currently working on HD2 720p units to be introduced later this year, though at slightly higher price points than I'd hoped for (they both told me that the North American HT PJ market is still quite small and cannot support pricing based on higher volumes yet). PLUS intends to continue it's modified direct sales model and should have the lower prices of the two. Since Outlaw has a purely direct sales model, they could probably compete at or near PLUS's price point, but they'd be extremely vulnerable if a price war ever started in earnest. If prices do drop, the catalyst could be Epson, who don't seem to be building any sort of home theater dealership base, and could simply drop a 720p home theater projector into their online business/computer channel, where margins are slim and pricing is cutthroat.

I'm waiting for Outlaw's next update for an indication if they still plan to jump in the front projection space.

-avi

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited June 18, 2002).]

Avi, you crack me up

How small is your tiny basement home theater that you can have a 84" 4:3 screen, but a 2' deep 80" RP would 'dominate the room'?
Do you always roll up your screen because it 'dominates you' when nothing's on?
I bet your screen doesn't even roll up.

A black RP screen looks better when off then a white or gray FP screen too IMO.

And on top of that, I have a decorative blanket I hang over the screen when off to absorb the rear reflections from my speakers which greatly improves sound quality when my HT is in 'audiophile mode'.

Hard to do that w/ a FP screen. Roll up version or not. You may think that's off-topic, but a display's only a part of a HT chain, and every link interacts with eachother and can't just be ignored as if it's a 'diff. topic'.

If you could have a GIANT screen in your HT that looked as good as your Piano (or better) it would be a better HT in your mind.

But say that screen covered so much wall area that you had to place small bookshelf speakers on your floor to have audio, you would NOT be improving your overall HT system. All the 'links in the chain matter.

You say you're not going to go off topic anymore because you don't like my comments on a $3,000 HD-RPTV being better than you $3,000 FP and have nothing to defend yourself judgement with.
But then you proceed to mention your website and reviews of projectors from the show you went to.

How's that NOT ANY LESS off topic to an Outlaw projector thread??

This thread's main topic has run it's course loooong ago (that being the suggestion LAST YEAR that Outlaw make a digital FP, and Outlaw obviously not having made one), so who cares about how the topic has slightly drifted now?

I'm stating how FP in general (from Outlaw or otherwise) is worse than RP in most respects other than size -though not even that in your small 4:3 screen case.

And since you mention you web site and posted a link, I checked it out -despite it not being this thread's topic either.

I got cracked up again when I see the' askavi' question on the main page.
The question is asking about 'big screens' and when to jump in since the technology keeps changing.

In your now clearly narrow front projection only view of the phrase 'big screen' (a term almost always refering to RPTVs) you don't mention screen sizes, distance from screen, or RP vs. FP features and flaws.

No, instead you describe what kind of FP you can get for diff. levels of money, and nothing more.

I like this qoute "Up your needs to full, native 1080i HDTV resolution (1920x1080i, which requires a 1920x1080 progressive-capable device), you have a much longer wait, as I know of nothing coming on the short term horizon."

Uh... no you don't need a 1080p system to display 1080i -only in your narrow digital microdisplay only mind is that true.

My $3,000 'big screen' Mitsu. you're probably sick of hearing about DOES do 1080i. Well, to be fully honest, not quite full 1080i from the 7" CRTs, but close enough for it's size and my seating distance for it not to matter if it could do 100% 1080i.

Too bad you either didn't know this, or decided to NOT let the questioner know about the better contrast, price and resolution of HD RPTV's, and only mentioned digital FP systems.

Very nice propaganda.

Come on, guys, this has long ago turned into a weiner wagging contest. Entertaining as it is, I don't think either of you is going to convince the other of his opinion. Just let it go, will you?

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

Evan Powell has a good summary of the low-end projector market in his Infocomm show report (posted at his site http://www.projectorcentral.com ).

-avi

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited June 18, 2002).]

Well put Matthew, no more weiner wagging guys. I still stand by my original remarks that if Outlaw could match the quality or even exceed the pj's that have been mentioned with full hdtv capability at an Outlaw price I would be very very interested.

Avi-

What can you tell me about that Faroudja D-ILA projector they had at the show?

I take it that setup took full advantage of the DVI input/output from the scaler/DVD transport to the projector?

What were the results? I talked to a Faroudja exec back in February and he was bragging all about how it was better than CRT, and how "You just haven't seen what DVD is capable of," and bragged about it staying "completely digital."

So can you get specific about it?

lotus_j,

I missed the Faroudja combo at the show, so I can't comment on its performance. It's such an expensive solution that it will have limited impact on the "if you have to ask" crowd. It is somewhat significant because it provides one of the few ways to keep your digital signal digital from DVD to display.

-avi

Anyone care to weigh in on the DLP RPTV sets that are starting to come out?

I just watched a Mitsu 65" for a while and it looked pretty darn good. Samsung and others are introducing much lower cost (and smaller - 42") table top sets that use DLP (same chip as the Mitsu) and so it seems that the extremely high price is more marketing than manufacturing driven.

Any good pointers/discussions as to the relative merits of DLP vs. CRT in a rear projection setup?

Oh - and one other thing, more on topic - what if Outlaw were first to market with a low cost 3 chip DLP projector?

Charlie

PS - This set uses the 1280x720 chip.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited July 09, 2002).]

Oh - and one other thing, more on topic - what if Outlaw were first to market with a low cost 3 chip DLP projector?

Charlie

What is your definition of "low cost?" 3 chips or not and over $5K is primarily margin. That's the same problem with the single chip versions. Retail on the InFocus models of $4K - $5K is overpriced for the result - especially at 848x480(600) pixels on the screen.

The single chip 848x480 should be $1800 on the street, then maybe a 3 chipper for $4K - $5K would be very interesting. It does not need to be feature "bulked-up" or built for movie house applications or work in a well lighted room, etc. It could be (1) manual focus, (2) 3 inputs only - composite, S, and component – no PC input, (3) optional DVI or 1394 at some future date with an add-on card, (4) NO audio, (5) split light source from a single lamp with at least 800 L, (6) reasonably priced bulb, (7) reasonably small package, < 15 lbs, (8) with no color wheel or motor - maybe 3 1280x720 DMDs, (9) 2, 3, or 4 small, low velocity cooling fans for getting the heat out, and (10) no de-interlacing chip - let the DVD player or Set Top Box (STB) or tape deck do it for the sources. (Well OK, we need one, a DI, if we allow composite and S-Video inputs for convenience. The DCDi would be ok –remember the source.) Additional/primary sources would be over-the-air broadcast, DirectTV, and HD Tape which should be direct in at 480p, 720p, or 1080i (1080p some day) only on the component input. We would worry about cable through the STB when they (cable providers) stop whining produce some quality product. A remote control to tweak the picture would be nice but not a necessity. It could be done with buttons on the projector – not convenient, but low cost. Limit throw distance and picture size to 20’ and 100” respectively. If you want more picture size, you have money and way too much space – go somewhere else.

Put the family on bread and water, cut the snacks, take the cars from the 20'something kids, get out the bikes, and sign me up. Where do I make the reservation?

The point here is that there is still a large void out there for a quality front projector at a reasonable price. The virtues of the CRT are moot – they are just too big. LCOS could be relevant if the manuf. can figure out how to make them in quantity. This includes JVC who is just way over the edge on cost, i.e., we only need to pay for R&D and big margins for so long. The only issues with DMD/DLP are cost and black level, and both are being improved by TI. It still looks like the technology to deliver the home theater experience for the masses.

I noticed that the Outlaw's new product will be another amp. An easy choice – and it fills a small hole in their line. But please, IMHO, another DVD player that plays every disk known to mankind is a waste. IT’S a DVD PLAYER, i.e., a good NTSC box. I bought a second one a few weeks ago – a new Sony progressive scan for $200. It looks fine on my XBR (for now), but neither is HD. Even with the Sony XBR on a STB delivering OTA HD broadcast, it is not HD. Looks good – better than NTSC – but not HD. That’s the DVD space. Maybe in a few years the “blue stuff” will be available, but until then – it’s DVD. We still lack a HD projected picture that cost less to buy than a decent car, and that’s where the market and work could be for the Outlaws. Projection is cost effective solution for space, HD, and the theater experience. I keep beating this drum because there is a void out there. The Holy Grail should be a front (or rear) projected 1920x1080p picture on an 80” screen with HD-DVD, but that will be longer than we should wait for something better than digital NTSC.




[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited July 11, 2002).]

Charlie,

As I posted above, the Samsung DLP sets I saw at the Home Entertainment Show were extremely impressive. I'm sure that was at least in part because they were over-driven (see my article at Secrets http://www.hometheaterhifi.com/volume_9_2/hifi-show-ny-wrap-up-greengart.html ), but the use of TI's much higher contrast HD2 chips was a more significant factor. In addition to "black" blacks and fully saturated colors, as with all fixed pixel displays, convergence was perfect and the images looked extremely sharp. The sets are 18" deep tabletop designs, which ought to be extremely WAF and decorator friendly with the right marketing campaign (which should include getting entertainment center furniture manufacturers to create complementary units).

JDB001,

The 3 chip DLP idea has been thrown around a lot on the public forums (just try to avoid rainbow discussions on http://www.avsforum.com ), but I think you're the first to suggest it here - and it's a great idea. If my component costs are correct, Outlaw should be able to put together a 3 chip (HD2 1280x720) projector with processing from DVDO or Faroudja, hit a $10K price point, and still make decent margins.

Anything less than $10K probably isn't realistic, and even $10K won't satisfy the potential projector masses - those folks will be better served by PLUS or InFocus. But an Outlaw 3 chip HD DLP at the same price point as the Sharp 9000u would be a revelation to the high end of the market.

-avi

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited July 11, 2002).]

Why is three chip better? Don't you get convergence problems?

Matthew,

Properly designed three chip projectors should not have convergence problems (though it's certainly a manufacturing issue). The advantages to three chip designs are:

1. Potential for better color fidelity and greater color control.
2. Elimination of artifacts that can be introduced by spinning color wheels. Faster and differently designed wheels have reduced the "rainbow" problem and even eliminated it completely for most people, but it's still an open issue for enthusiasts and a highly sensitive minority.
3. Potential for slightly quieter operation (the color wheel makes a high pitched noise in some single chip designs).
4. Potential for higher light output (not necessarily needed for the home market, but often desired anyway).

-avi

Avi,

How do you 'over-drive' a DLP set??
CRT's ... sure. That's easy.

Since DLP uses a single light bulb that is always fully on, and the only thing a DLP chip does is deflect that light, you can overdrive it.

TI's scanning spiral color wheel should pretty much eliminate the need for costly three chip systems.

Again... Avi doesn't know that current color wheels eliminate rainbow effect for most people. He just thinks it's probably true. I'll keep correcting you on this as long as you keep telling people this.
No one's ever done a large scale test of it. Most people have never even seen a DLP projector.
My and I wife saw rainbows like crazy on the Plus Piano (which is what Avi has). My wife had no idea what the effect was until I explained it to her.
Some people don't see rainbows until they find out about them and then they notice that they're there.

Like if I point out a crack on your windshield that you didn't notice, and then it bothers you every time you drive your car.

Avi said - "Potential for slightly quieter operation (the color wheel makes a high pitched noise in some single chip designs).

What current projectors have color wheels that are audible? I say none.

Fan noise... now that's an issue, though it's almost nothing in rear projection, and only slightly louder in most current HT DLP FP's.

Face it Outlaw ISN'T going to make a projector. There's nothing stopping Outlaw from making one, othre than they probably just don't want to get into the video market yet (if ever), and the fact that companies like Plus and Infocus and Sharp already make very low priced systems that outlaw probably couldn't match in price/preformance. It's just seems to not be thier field.

This thread is VERY VERY OLD. Give up.
If anyone want one, just go buy one. Don't wait for Outlaw to make one.

Actually this looks pretty good -

http://www.optoma.com/public/rptv_65_50.htm

Lots of tweaks....

How do they overdrive the DMD? Or are they oversizing the lamp or something?

Charlie

Charlie,
If you look up, you'll see I just asked Avi this.

I already know the answer though -"You can't".

I just like givin' him a hard time 'cuz he likes says some mis-information quite often IMO.

He'll tell you why the best options are the only ones he knows about too. Can't blame him I guess, but can't agree either.

Check out his AskAvi web site. He posted it here himself, so I checked it out.

Page one -someone asked about 'big screens' and Avi ONLY talked about front projectors -and not all that informed or accurately either.

The basic conclusion seeing to be -get the Plus Piano ('cuz he's got the Plus Piano). Manipulative IMO.

When someone says Big Screen they mean RP 99.99% of the time IMO, and he didn't even mention them like they don't exist.

You can read this post backwards as see my take on this issue.

I think if you have a website meant to solicit questions like these (and you post it on forums like this), you ought to really know what you're talking about very well, and not omit entire categories of information 'cuz you don't think people should be told about them.

Just my opinion though.

Don't mean to be harsh Avi, but I call 'em like I see 'em.

Yeah, that Optima looks awesome!

That's just the type of set I've been talking about. None of the problems Front pj's have, and it's still a huge HD picture in a thin depth table top design.

I hope it actually hits the market. Many hopeful sets like this type have failed to do so.

If you read an earlier post I made here you'll see me describe this exact design, but in an 80" model which would blow away a FP like the decent/value Plus Piano.

Check out www.scramtech.com

They haven't updated in a looooong time which looks pretty bad, but their screen (if able to be put into mass production) would make these RP designs even thinnner, and higher contrast, and more resistant to ambient room light.
Samsung's been hooked up with them, but so far nothing on the market. Too bad.

Digital microdisplay RP's are already lighter, cheaper, have better longevity, and better pixel fill than Plasma. They're not as thin, but they're still 'pretty' thin.

And if you're not looking for a GIGANTIC screen (only HUGE -heh), this should be the best price/quality design.
And you don't have to worry about costly bulb life like a front pj version (RP's use ~100 watt, fairly cheap 10,000 hr. rated bulbs).
And you don't have to turn the lights off or paint the walls black to have excellent black level.

Charlie,

How do you overdrive a DLP? Literally, you can't - but it's hard to describe things you see on new technologies without using pre-existing terminology. You could just as reasonably object to the term "anamorphic DVD," as there really is no such thing. But since the term describes the phenomenon reasonably well, the term stuck. Here, too, the DLP sets Samsung showed at Home Entertainment 2002 appeared like overdriven CRT sets. In other words, they had their contrast and/or brightness and/or color settings adjusted for maximum punch at the expense of accuracy. They exhibited extremely high contrast, high color saturation (flesh tones were a bit warm), and "clipped" or "blooming" highlights (bright areas such as whites lost some of the gradations in color). I have experimented with similar settings on my own HD1-based DLP projector, so I have some basis for comparison. While I could easily see that the Samsungs' HD2 contrast improvements were real - and quite impressive - it wasn't possible to tell just how significant the improvements would be with the settings pulled back into ranges that produce a more accurate picture. As I mention in the article, some other manufacturer reps were claiming that all the sets on the second floor were suffering from magnetic forces from the subway system (I don't make this stuff up, I promise).

Most single chip DLP projectors for the business market have audible color wheels. It's not the decibel level, rather the pitch - it can be quite grating. Thankfully, the latest DLP designs - for both business and pleasure - seem to have muffled the wheel. Mostly what you hear is the fan.

As to azryan's critiques of my columns, they're at http://www.greengart.com/askavi.htm - judge for yourself.

-avi

[This message has been edited by Avi (edited July 15, 2002).]

Good Morning All,
I've read this entire thread in an attempt to further my video education. I'm currently reading all of the information I can find on current and thoretical technologies pertaining to video. Quite a daunting task! I appreciate all of the views, both objective and subjective contained herein.
After all of my continued searching, I still come to a few conclusions that I just can't get past. I'm hoping you knowledgeable video types can help me. Even with all of the improvements to FP and RP systems, I still find the images darker than I'd like, the viewing 'sweet spot' much smaller than I'd like, and the pictures just don't 'seem' as sharp or accurate as tube systems. I just haven't seen an RP or FP system that compares to a tube system. The only time that I've seen an FP system that I was impressed with, was when I was doing a show in conjuction with a GE Light Valve projector with a 40', yes foot, image. And still we had to dim the room lights.
I would love to have a 60", or so, image to put into the room that I'm designing. the problem is that when I do a side-by-side comparison between RP, FP, et.al., and tubes, there just is no comparison!
Please provide me a list of your favorite products and configurations as I'd like to go see them for myself. I'm sure that I'm just not looking at the right gear. If you would, please include varying price levels so that I can see both what is possible and what is practical.
I very much appreciate your help on this. If I can be of any assisstance on the audio side, please don't hesitate to ask.
Mix

Hello All, I posted a question a little while ago, but it seems to have disappeared. I'll try to keep this short in case the other post shows up.
I'm looking for a list of all of your favorite RP, FP, et. al., video systems. I'm trying to find something in a large (60" or greater) format that compares with tube projection systems. I've looked pretty extensively and just can't seem to find an alternative to tubes without some serious limitations or compromises. (i.e. dark picture, off axis viewing, sharpness and accuracy, etc.) I must not be seeing the best options out there. Please tell me your recommendations, both price as no object and 'practical', so that I may form a truer knowledge base as to my options. I appreciate your help and advice.
Thanks,
Mix

Avi,
a poorly adjusted picture (not uncommon at shows) is very diff. than 'overdriven DLP' (which doesn't exist).
Shoulda' just described the Samsung's picture problems rather than sum it up by saying the sets 'looked great but overdriven' like you originally did.

Hello All, I posted a question a little while ago, but it seems to have disappeared. I'll try to keep this short in case the other post shows up.
I'm looking for a list of all of your favorite RP, FP, et. al., video systems. I'm trying to find something in a large (60" or greater) format that compares with tube projection systems. I've looked pretty extensively and just can't seem to find an alternative to tubes without some serious limitations or compromises. (i.e. dark picture, off axis viewing, sharpness and accuracy, etc.) I must not be seeing the best options out there. Please tell me your recommendations, both price as no object and 'practical', so that I may form a truer knowledge base as to my options. I appreciate your help and advice.
Thanks,
Mix

MixFixJ,

You said -"Even with all of the improvements to FP and RP systems, I still find the images darker than I'd like, the viewing 'sweet spot' much smaller than I'd like, and the pictures just don't 'seem' as sharp or accurate as tube systems. I just haven't seen an RP or FP system that compares to a tube system. The only time that I've seen an FP system that I was impressed with, was when I was doing a show in conjuction with a GE Light Valve projector with a 40', yes foot, image.

Hmmm... when you say FP and RP that ONLY means Front Projection, and Rear Projection, but I think you 'probably' mean 'digital microdisplay' front or rear projection right??? Is that what you mean?

When you say 'none compares to a tube system', do you mean a 3 gun CRT tube systems or, 'direct view' tube, or BOTH???

Very confusing question without knowing for sure what you mean since both FP and RP are available as digital and TUBE based. My 65" RP is tube based BTW -as are most RP's.

One thing that sucks about all FP systems is that room you watch them in becomes the 'box' (like the box a RP is in) so any light in the room (or bouncing around the room from off the screen) is going to screw up contrast. This effect might be what you mean by 'too dark'???

Black velvet walls and zero lights will show you how good any FP system can be, but I don't wanna live in a room like that.
More FP owners 'comprimise' by having dark-ish colored walls. White walls is very un-good.

Digital microdisplays use a light bulb for it's light output, and are typically MUCH brighter than tube based FP (CRT), so I don't really get what you're saying or thinking?

RP's (whether microdisplay or CRT based) should both be as bright as needed. You might not think they're bright enough when set properly, but it's not like volume control 'preference' in audio.

You can "Overdrive" the CRT guns and make the picture far too blindingly bright than it should ever be -and that SHOULD be brighter than you'd ever want (I hope!)

With micordisplay systems, the bulb is always on at full light output, so you set contrast and brightness to adjust how much light gets deflected away from the screen by the microdisplay chip/s (that's ALL the chip is for).

You can set that wrong too though and output a picture that's too bright/incorrect contrast, but you can never "Overdrive" the microdisplay or bulb. You're never changing the bulb's brightness.

Have you ever 'tested' any of these sytems that you think are too dark? Where have you seen them? In stores?

All it takes is a disc that has some video test screens like Avia, Vid. Esentials, and many THX movies even. This will show you how they display the deepest black-through the gray scale-to it's brightest white.
Stores often don't have the systems set right (or customers screw them up). Do you have crappy flouresent lighting in your room like most stores do?

Except for horrible sets like the LCD-based Sony Grand Wega (which can't come close to hitting black) you should find them all pretty much bright enough to be correct (tube or digital).

You're probably just used to direct view tube TV's that can get VERY bright without as much damage to them. It won't be set 'correctly' though -That's part of why movies don't usually look like film on direct view sets.

Do you like to watch movies in a brightly lit room or something??? You shouldn't have a prob. if you don't.

With FP, the only 'sweet spot' issue is really a matter of what screen you use (hi-gain screens can produce 'hot spotting'), NOT the display itself.

You could project any FP onto a flat white wall and it would have a perfectly uniform picture as seen from anywhere in the room.

Rear Projection technically does have a sweet spot problem, but IMO very little/none in practical use w/ modern sets.

Set up so the center of the set's about eye level when sitting (pretty much what all floor standing RP's are set to), and sitting at a decent distance (I'm at ~12' from my 65" Mitsu.) and the picture is perfectly uniform within a fairly wide horizontal window.
I'd say ~6'-7' window (about as wide a window as a typical couch). If you're much farther off center than that it will get dark edges the futher away you go.
But WHY would you ever sit way off center??? Your audio will be totally screwed up too sitting like that. Leave those spots for guests and children who don't know any better.

'Real world' use, and a typical HD-RPTV will be a VERY uniform picture.

Maybe you're seeing them all at stores where you're standing taller then the sets, and standing closer than you'd actually be in you home?

As far as 'sharp' and 'accurate'. Well, inaccurate HOW?
Set correctly my 65" Mitsu (since you wanted an example) is very accurate in every way a picture is judged. Not perfect of course, but it's flaws are tiny. You can have a set maxed out by an ISF tech, and it'll be damn near perfect.

As far as 'sharp'... uh.. you'd have to see some HD on this set. Too bad there ain't much available, but that's not the set's fault. PBS is always showing travel video in HD. Helicopter overhead shots of all diif. places around the world.

Pretty boring to really watch for very long, but VERY VERY sharp, and a higher res than a direct view tube can display -not that it needs to display that much 'cuz a direct view is so much smaller you can't see the diff. unless you sit too close to it.

JVC's digital LCoS chips (currently used only in FP systems) are the highest res. you can get right now, and have a very tight fill factor. Invisible unless you're sitting stupidly close.

What exactly are you looking for?

It's not about which technology's the best. It's about in the end what has the best picture and is it big enough, easy enough to live with, and cheap enough to afford.

Like speakers.. ribbons, cones, domes, or panels? It's about which sounds the most accurate, and you can afford.

Performance and cost.

Right now I consider my 65" HD-Mitsu. to be great performance (great black level, awesome color incl. 'true red'), big enough (not as big as I'd like, but it's big), easy to live with (plug it in and set it correctly), and I still haven't paid for it (got a one year no pay deal).

A FP can be bigger, but the diff. between an 80" FP hung on the front wall, and a 65" 2-3' closer in the form of a RP isn't much of a diff in size.
Picture-wise the CRT based Mitsu. is true HD res. and better contrast than a FP can have (unless no ambient light and black room).

FP can be worth all the extra hassles and compromises IMO if you go to a much larger screen than available in RP (I'd like to see an 80" digital RPTV though), but then on top of all the inherent troubles of FP, it can also be hard to set up your audio correctly with main speakers w/ 4'-6' feet of air around them and ~7-8' apart at the max.

With a screen that big you'd have to place it too high probably (which screws up it's uniformity) or else you'll be putting the main speakers too close to the front wall so they don't block the screen (depends on the speakers though). And lots of people place their mains too far apart anyway, incorrectly using the center speaker to 'fill the gap'.

Off topic, but ...If you don't sit way off center (and again... why would you?) you don't need a center speaker. If your main speakers aren't faaaar more open sounding, and inherently perfectly matching compared to any center speaker then they're set up wrong.
If they don't image as sharply as a (so-called) center speaker, then they're either set up wrong or they aren't very good speakers.

Ryan,
Thanks for the info. All good stuff. I'm going to keep this short as I'm having trouble with the net and this is the third time I've tried to reply today!
Yes, I am comparing alternate formats to direct view (I think this is the correct term, I take instruction well) monitors. I'll be back with specific questions and responses to your post later. I just wanted to thank you for replying.
by the way, I want to hear about the eARTwo amp when you get it. It's very intrieging.
Mix

Heh,
I wanna hear it too!! I'm going to be mating it to my Outlaw 950, but I'm almost afraid to tell that to people outside this forum!

A very hi-end amp like this should only (IMO and many others) be conected to a high quality passive preamp, and killer DAC/transport. IOW, some very snobby 'audiophile' gear! I'm not that rich yet! -heh

I'll probably get ripped apart for mating a low priced A/V pre/pro to a mint state of the art amp.

No offence Outlaws. I like my 950, and it's a great price, but it's not 'super clean' HI end, but neither are other more costly A/V pre/pros.

Can't buy it all at once though!

I missed it before but it looks like you're looking for ~60" picture?

That's CRT RPTV 100% IMO. You said you just saw a Mitsu 65". That's just what I have (though they make diff. 'levels' of them).

The best you can get are probably the Pioneer Elite's, but they SO costly, I just can't find them worth it. Toshiba makes good sets too. For much cheaper than the Elite's you could get one of the Tosh or Mitsu. and pay a few hundred bucks to have an ISF tech guy max it out. That'll look better than an Elite set up on your own.

I haven't bothered w/ that myself though as I'm totally happy w/ my Mitsu.'s picture -much better than the Plus Piano DLP front projector I had for 10 days, not that the Piano is bad or anything, just for the exact same price it was a slightly bigger, but poorer contrast, less sharp, high future bulb costs, and my wife and I saw color wheel rainbows w/ it. I'm VERY glad I didn't buy it when they had a no refund policy!
DO NOT buy a color wheel system unless you can return it -in case you see the rainbow efect.

The only real flaw w/ my picture is that lots of junk on local digital TV is encoded like crap, and sat. TV wasn't meant to be blown up that big.

Sadly, dull PBS 1080i loops are the best things ever seen on my set.
The best of DVD's in prog. scan (480p) look almost as good though, and much better than a movie theater. Like a perfect day one film release!

Don't let someone tell you front projection looks more film-like than rear projection either. They're just biased, and narrow-mindedly thinking 'cuz movie theaters are front projection, then that must be the best for at home too.

Remember -a movie theater ISN'T a worthy "point of reference" for picture quality, and ESP. not for sound quality.

You can probably find a great 65" for ~$2,500 now. Under $2,000 for ~55"-60".

As for audio... I'll probably never stop trying for better.

I really think DLP or LCoS (liquid crystal on silicon) will be the future along w/ fully digital inputs (looks like new FireWire "B" should be that input IMO).

The new DLP sets coming out should be great, but they're still overpriced. Slowly CRT sets will be fazed out when DLP or other microdisplay designs finally hit CRT prices and below.

Some people love how Plasma sets look, but personally I think they have a poor fill factor (screen door effect around the pixels), and I don't trust their life span.
They're VERY overpriced IMO too.

If you like a direct view picture though and want bigger, Plasma's probably the closest 'look'. Very un-film-like IMO, but maybe not yours?

In FP, Panasonic (I'm pretty sure) is making some VERY cheap units that use LCD if you want a much bigger than 65" picture for the same price. The pixel fill factor is poor, and contrast stinks compared to a 65" CRT though, but some people just want BIG -and for cheap.

Plus you have to worry about continual bulb cost, minor fan noise, additional screen cost, proj. mounting, long cable runs from video players, etc...

Good Morning Ryan,
As far as 'theatre quality'video is concerned, my current set-up visually is 'better'. Sony XBR and Sony NS700P DVD. If theatre is the reference, then I don't like the standard. Audio wise, it will be a while before I can surpass my HT outside of the home. You mentioned optimum spacing of my main speakers. That won't be a problem as the correct spacing for my speakers is about 10 feet (three meters) toe-in. I do want to keep my center as I feel ( I could be wrong) that 5.1, or 6.1, is mixed with specific audio remnants for the center channel and I don't want to lose those. All of my speakers are matched and sound very good to me. i've calibrated the system and the room and it sounds GOOD! I'm currently using the 1050 as a pre for processing (waiting for a 950, and may go with the Anthem) and I use a separate pre for 2 channel listening. My mains are bi-amped (matched amps) and my surrounds are bi-wired. Don't let anyone criticize your using your 950 with the eARTwo. If you don't like the 950 as a pre, upgrade to a separate pre for 2 channel. Screw 'their' opinions.
You are extremely fervent in your support for RP. You make very good arguments. So much so that I will more closely examine that option. I may just go with a 42" XBR if I can find one without all of the audio add-ons. I haven't seen the feature sets on the soon-to-be-released new XBR's. I really like the direct view image all around. And I already have a nice Bell'Ogetti stand to put it on! It matches my rack. Hey aesthetics are important too. No , they are not my guiding influence. Just a concern.
I have seen both the Elite's and the Mitsu's. I'll look closer.
Thanks for all of the info.
Mix

I don't understand something about that Optoma TV that Charlie linked to. The specs state 1280x720 resolution, but then 1080i is listed as one of the available resolutions. Doesn't 1080i require a resulution of 1920x1080?

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

Yeah, for a fixed panel system (like Plasma or DLP)you'd need to 1920X1080, but then you could do 1080P with a line doubler which would be the ultimate IMO -someday!!

They just mean that the set can 'handle' the picture resolution. It's a little marketing trickery is all to make it sound like it can do anything and everything when it really can't.

Everything justs gets changed to the panel's res.

Should still look sharp and solid, but my next set's gonna be 1080P capable -many years from now I'm sure.

I hope they don't make the first HD-DVD's 720P. 'Cuz down the road, they'll probably just come out with 'Super HD-DVD's that can output 1080P, and then we'll all have to re-buy T2 yet again!!!
-heh

And then yet again when the double-super HD-DVDs, at 1620p, come out! ;-)

My point: it doesn't matter what resolution they make HD-DVDs, you're still going to have to buy T2 again.

Although I do wish it would be 1080p (or better... ;-)

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

Anybody figure how big those pixels are?

My math says* about 1mm diagonal on a 65" 16:9 set. I can live with that for a long time.

*I only ran it once - check me!

Diagonal pixels == 1469 (square root of 1280x1280+720x720)

Diagonal inches == 65

65/1469 == ~.044 per pixel, or 22.5 pixels per diagonal inch.


Charlie


Worked a second way - a 16:9 65" screen is 56.7x31.9
1280 divided by 56.7 == 22.6
720 divided by 31.9 == 22.6



[This message has been edited by charlie (edited July 15, 2002).]

Charlie,
I'm no good at math, if you like crunching what would:

3.15 Million
(1366x768x3)
or
1.05 Million
(1366 x 768)each panel

Diagonal Pixels = ?
Diagonal Inches = 60

run out to?

Well....

Assuming a 16:9 60" screen, that would be 52.3 x 29.41...

52.3 / 1366 == .038 or 26.1 pixels per inch
29.4 / 768 == .038 or 26.1 pixels per inch

The 'diagonal pixel' thing was me being stupid - the pixels are square but the 16:9 diagonal is not a 45 degree line - the screen diagonal won't cross at the pixel corners. To compute pixel diagonal multiply by 1.4 (for square pixels)


Charlie

Thanks Charlie
I tried to run the #'s myself after reading your earlier post, but was coming up with mis-mash.

No problem!

I ran those first set since I'm thinknig about a HD2 based RPTV in the 60-65 inch range and there was some concern regarding 1080i getting down converted to the native 720 resolution. As a simple test I printed a pattern of blocks on a 1/20 inch grid on paper and viewed it at different distances. My preliminary conclusion is that (unless the DLP looks very different) the pixel size at real viewing distances is, for me, a non-issue.


Charlie

I can't see pixels on my 65" Mitsu. from ~13' away where I sit (or even standing much closer) and that even when only watching DVD's that are projected at 480P.

1080i from say,... PBS, look much sharper though, but it depends so strongly on the original picture source's res. AND quality.

I doubt you'll have any problem between 720p and 1080i as far as total resolution or downconverting, but since 1080i seems to be more popular I don't dig 720P as much, and once 1080P sets become possible, everyone who's into it like we all are will be upconverting all that 1080i to progressive for a much better than 720P picture.

'Real world speaking' none of this matter right now though IMO.

One thing to note on DLP.
The current DLP RP sets (from Mitsu, Panasonic and/or Pioneer -I forget which) seemed to have a blurry effect on fast motion.
If you look at one in a store that feeds the same HD signals to all their HD sets and you see something fast like a Football game...

Look at how blurry/choppy (hard to describe) the pic looks as it pans across. It's like it can't keep up w/ the picture's speed.

Now look at the CRT-based sets. They'll follow the motion much better.
I haven't gotten a chance to look for this effect on the FP DLP systems I've seen, but it should be the same since it's the same DLP chip.

Not sure if the newer DLP chips move any faster?

Could be 'cuz the original feed is 1080i and the 720P DLP sets are too slow at downconverting? Just a wild thought based on total guessing.

I would doubt the actual DMD was the problem since they can 'switch' at 5kHz. The conversion, maybe motion detection stuff in processing would seem a good bet, as you guessed.

But I'm just guessing too.

Charlie

I read somewhere that this was a problem with DLP technology but latest generation TI chips should be faster. The reason stated had something to do with the electrical charge that attracts the corner of each micro mirror to ‘tilt’ it to display the required light/color. It’s the speed that the charge can tilt each mirror at, - which is the limiting factor. The first generations were supposed to show this ‘choppiness’ on fast action where the mirrors can’t keep up. I forgot watching Samsung displays to ck for that occurrence. Have you looked for this effect on the 2 newest Samsung displays Azryan? Their resolution alone looked sharper than the other competing DLP’s on the floor but I truly did not watch for the ‘fast action’ problem to see if that area had improved.

I don't know if the cause was slow mirrors, slow processors, slow color wheels, or some combination, but first generation DLPs definitely had a fast motion blur problem. I didn't find the problem anywhere near as bad as it is on a slow-refresh LCD monitor, but it was there. It was particularly noticeable on the DLP-based RPTVs (I watched a lot of HDTV football demos on those units). In the limited time I had with the Samsung DLP RPTVs, I didn't notice this problem at all, nor have I seen it on fast color wheel front projectors.

-avi

My whoops Avi,
I retract my prior post just ran into the infor. it DID list the blurred fast action as due to the three devices used for primary colors or the color wheel speed, whichever technology is used.

It was disappointing back in the middle of August when I received the newsletter/note from the Outlaws with info about 950 problems and several other items. In particular the word that new products in the foreseeable future would not include a DLP projector was what caught my eye. Since my 950 is cruising along, no noise, I was hopping for a matching video mate in the form of a quality HD DLP projector without the absorbent overhead cost present in retail products. Unfortunately for many of us, it looks like the Outlaws will only target electronic components, which is obviously where most of their expertise lies. But even so, reading the "new product" discussions on the website from those promoting digital amps are the real hoot. It is funny and sad to see those exclaiming they can hear big differences in amps (when they are not clipping - less that .1 % THD, IMD and SRD - and the same peak output capability). Sorry - you're dreaming folks. They should focus on really hard problems like reproducing accurate and controlled sound fields in a room, or projecting a high quality video image at a cost well south of the price of an average compact car.

There has been a lot of discussion over the past few weeks on the web about new projectors from Panasonic, Epson, and Sony with retail prices under $3K and up to $4K. All will be LCD based, and only a couple units qualify as barely HD at 1280x720p native on the screen. Several people attended CEDIA last week and posted reports. The word from local retailers in Chicago is the Sony will market their contributions as "multimedia" and not for home theater - not sure why, but marketing guys make mistakes all of the time. The largest in the area (Abt) said they would not carry the cost effective versions, but rather they will stick to the VW12HT at the very high side ($7K+). (Look at the AVS site if you have not all ready or are interested in the speculation on HTPC, scalers, progressive scanner, performance, etc.) The only new DLPs in the actual HD realm (1280x720p - HD2 - single chip 12 deg. Mirrors - LVDS - DDR) are $10K plus. The price is primarily due to mark-up for all the "out-stretched hands" in the middle since its not likely that the BOM for any of the exhibits is greater than $1K. That's not to say the published spec's don't look good - they do - but the $9K mark-up from actual cost to the user is way to big a chunk to swallow. I guess they (TI) are continuing to target several thousand products per year in HT and not substantial volumes. The prime example is the new InFocus Screenplay 720 using the new HD2 chip set from TI. The spec's look great - but, at $9995- sorry, no sale! There are several manufacturers trying to pawn off 1024x768 DLPs using last years parts at $5K and more - $2500 maybe for old stuff, but not at $5K+.

This unfortunate state of affairs in the front projector product line-up is especially disappointing with an understanding of what is possible. I wonder if TI demands a specific retail price, and freezes out manufacturers who potentially would not hold the line and actually compete with other manufacturers. No one wants competition, just a monopoly in all businesses, although they seldom admit to it in public. Ask good old SBC (al la Ameritech) here in the Windy city where they have a dis-information campaign to say they should not have to allow other local competitors to use "their" wires, and "oh yea, by the way" they need a lot more money from us for the privilege. SBC conveniently forgets that the wires were built and paid for in another era by a captured user group without options for competition and at the cost of "no progress" in telecom technology, but that's a debate for another discussion and another day. Maybe Sony will perfect their light grating projection system in the next couple years and inject a little competition into the high quality, digital projector marketplace. Since the Outlaws will not enter the projector fray, it looks like the marketplace is several years away from being a buyers market with actual competition. My problem is the old FP Mits' is getting a little old and may die any day.

My personal favorite is when it's day and night, obvious, unmistakable, yet only observable in sighted conditions and cannot be measured.

Huh?

I too was disappointed at the sight of the Outlaw newsletter stating no projector. I think the performance/price point the wanted to achieve was just not there. Also I speculate they would not want to deal with the hordes of problems they would have to deal with. Dead pixels, dust blobs, screendoor, rainbows, and anything else that would fill this forum with negativity. The new products by sharp and sim2 do sound promising. Although the sony HS-10 is at my pricepoint. I personally would love to have the new JVC. I think it would be a giant undertaking on the part of Outlaw to put out a projector. One they have obviously felt they are not ready for, being the standup company they are. I just wish their new products are something we really want. Not plain-jane amps that we already have. I want the new products to be something we really feel we need. A new projector definately comes to mind.

On the other hand I respect the Outlaws choice to stick with their core skills. It's often foolish to wander too far from a companies core area of expertise.

Maybe they could relabel an existing product.

I thought that PLUS and InFocus would come out with 720P HD2 units in the $5K range and run away with the market -- that hasn't happened. Everyone is blaming TI for pricing the DLP chips for enthusiasts only. I met with TI back in May, and I know they're pricing the units much lower for mass-market RPTVs.

-avi

If Samsung releases the 61" DLP set as rumored it will fit just perfectly in my room.....

Charlie the HLM617W? I looked up the first 2 Samsung DLP that were coming out just as I purchased my LCD. The pic was impressive on the showroom floor! I did talk to a salesman who had been at CEDA (not the last one, the one before) who mentioned a possible problem with the first Samsung DLP’s with heat. I did not look into any possible details on this subject further once I purchased my set and if it had manifested (or not) as a consumer issue.

Nice technology.

My understanding is that there are actually 4 sets so far - two 43 and two 50 inch. Apparently there are some important differences in the video scaleing hardware etc betweeen the versions.

I've never laid eyes on the Sammy, but the other DLP I've seen is encouraging. One obvious thing was the nature of the picture - they just don't look like glowing tubes. To me the colors in the DLP systems were more 'film like' for lack of a better term.

Once they mature I think there is great potential.

The state of HD or near-HD projectors available at a reasonable price continues to be a disappointment. The price for the new InFocus and Toshiba unit (using the HD2 chips at 1280x720) appears to be about 70% mark-up. I wonder who is actually manuf. the unit – Toshiba? Or are they contracted to a factory on the mainland in China for about 10% of their list? The retail price for the new units will be $10,000 – OK, $9995. Hey – it’s charge what you can get away. It’s like the TV ad – stand in front of the mirror and if you read “sucker” across your forehead, then lay out the cash. This type of market only works for two situations: 1) no competition for a clearly superior technology and performance, and 2) control the market price by collusion. I do not think it is the former or we would not have rainbows and headaches and 2KHr lamps. Besides, I do not see any of them putting 1920x1080p on the screen at 120” diag., @20’, 1000 L and 2000:1 contrast for $10K. The cinema guys back off the theater units for $50K, but what fun is that.

Based on the list price, I calculate the cost for the new HD2 units as follows:
Minimum --> Maximum
TI parts to manuf. $800 $1000
Additional materials $100 $ 200
Assembly cost $200 $ 300
Manuf BOM $1100 $1500
Cost to Distribution $2200 $3000

Cost to Dealer $4400 $6000
(assume 10% for Rep orgs.)
Cost to Consumer $8800 $10000
(assume 10% off to beat the competition)

This is the normal consumer products mark-up margins, with some in the chain making a lot of money and doing little for it. And don't give me the stock and store-front argument, the web guys have very low cost to blow stuff out at retail. The Outlaws should be $3995 to their customer, or at most $4495 out of the chute. They apparently must buy as a distributor. The way I read them is that (1) they are already making lots of money on the electronics (because IT’S GOOD STUFF) – and they don’t need any more money, (2) who needs the support headaches, (3) TI and the big guys are fixing the price with no market dynamics, and they will not let them (Outlaws) in the biz at their cost for a unit, approx = $2200 à $2500, or (4) they are waiting for LCDs to get good enough for some competition at $2000 --> $3000 retail. It may not happen, but we will see what happens when the new Sony and Panasonic projectors get out there over the next few weeks. JVC has a new projector (SX1) at $10K that sound on paper as good as the DLPs – we will wait for some test data when they deliver next month. Yes, it is a sad state of affair for those of us without a spare $10K lying around. The kids still have to eat, and the bank wants the mortgage – it’s depressing.



[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited October 23, 2002).]

JDB:

I hate to tell you this, but you are dramatically underestimating the cost these projectors. Consider the following:

* Cost of HD-2 plus the associated ASICs needed to drive it is more than you estimate.
* Cost of the lamp/ballast, assembly, etc.
* Cost of the scalar electronics. If you do it right, it isn't cheap.
* Cost of the optics: Lens/color wheel/associated light pipe components, etc.
* Cost of the power supply, fan, misc. electronics.

Oh, and do you think it costs anything to assemble and test. How about ammortoization of the cost of software development and integration of hardware components. How about tooling ammoritzation?

Opps, I forgot that there is marketing to consider, and THEN you get to the profit.

I doubt that there is any collusion. Me thinks that TI would LOVE to drive the cost down if they could. But, right now, it looks as though about $9-12K is the right ballpark for an HD-2 based front projector.

But what do I know, I'm only a dog!

ARF ARF, says Iggy.

The electronics on the Sammys have service menu settings to allow image flipping, so in theory you could buy an RPTV and some lenses....

Kinda off and kinda on topic here. I just read where LG.Philips LCD has unveiled a 42" LCD display. You read that right, 42" LCD... not plasma. If this trend continues, I think the majority of home users would migrate to large panel LCD's in lieu of projectors. This thing boasts a viewing angle greater than 175 degrees and is only about two inches thick! You can read the press release here .

Projectors will still be the order of the day for displays over about five or six feet, but I think most users would find a large screen LCD a better fit. Shorter cable runs, quieter, and no bulbs to burn out. Of course, still just my opinion. What do you guys think?

The DLP stuff has interesting advantages in theory and the optical engines are getting thin - one 65" DLP RPTV is 16" deep IIRC.

I like LCD, but the ones I've seen just don't look like film, whereas even with the 1st generation problems the older DLP I saw looked very film-like.

I'm taking a wait and see - my IDTV looks good on std def and there's not much HD content yet anyway. I figure content and mature technology might just converge this time....

"The Dog"
You are not paying attention. That's where the extra money goes - adver., promos, overhead, burden (building - marketing, etc). I don't want to pay that in my biz, which is what I thought was the Outlaw's biz model. BTW - material cost for every thing you buy is about 10% of retail - or less. This applies to your car, radio, TV, BFast cereal, etc. The web biz model is suppose to get rid of at least 50% of the bloat. The Outlaw's biz model doen't work if they can't get the material built without all the bloat added on (as if they were not on the web biz model). Apparently they must buy from the assembly guy (manuf. is costly), who buys from TI, and the assembly guy is not going to let them undercut him if he is also in the retail biz. That's apparently the problem.

[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited October 24, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited October 24, 2002).]

The Samsung HLM507W - 50-inch Tantus HDTV is selling (soon) for $3,249.00 + $100 shipping.

It has the TI HD-2 device and a scaling set from Farouja (IIRC), so it's pretty indicative of what could be done.

http://www.samsungelectronics.com/tv/product_news/tv_admin_1034726225500_101010.html

JDB:

As they used to say in the commercials: STOP, YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT!

Yes, you are correct that the Outlaw's model should, to a great (but NOT total) extent eliminate the marketing costs we both outlined, and it does eliminate margin layers from reps, dealers, etc.

On the other hand (opps -- other PAW) I would guess that the Outlaws don't have the volume that someone like a Samsung does with a large consumer business, or folks that can piggyback a consumer product on the volume for chips and key components of a biz/"road Warrrior" projection business. WHere that puts them is, to some extent, where you project: they are forced to buy from an assembler, putting back in his mark-up to replace the take-out from a web-based sales model. OR, they can build-it themselves or on an ODM basis, but there they pay a cost penalty for the lower margins on key components.

But if you build it yourself or on a custom basis, the problem with video projectors is that there are a few high-value components where colume is key. If you ain't got it, you're gonna pay through the nose for DLP chips, optics (lens/color wheel/pipe, etc), lamp assembly, power supply, high-value chips (scalars, etc.)

Finally, there is the problem that margins for video are BRUTAL and not as comfortable in most cases as they are with audio.

It ain't easy. One can only imagine what the Outlaws are thinking, but presumably they will either find a way around all of this or decide to continue to sit it out rather than bleed out the dollars.

Hey, but what do I know, I'm only a dog!

ARF ARF says Iggy!

I give up. No DLP for the masses in the forseeable future. We will just have to see how the new LCD projectors (Sony, Panasonic, Epson) just now being released and targeted at the HT market do over the next few weeks. Maybe they will take enough of the market from "the InFocus DLP" crowd to make an impact on price. Spec-wise these new PJs will have the capability since they are not simply "juiced up" data projectors, but rather new designs targeted at the HT market. With consumer street prices in the $1500 - $3500 range, their presence should be felt.

With all this talk of DLP prjectors, has anyone checked out the piano HE 3100, or HE 3200? They both ring in at under 5K, with the 3100 under 3K.

Any one taken the plunge and put one in their HT yet?

Jason

The Plus projectors are not HD, just EDTV. The hope is for a native HD DLP (1280x720) projector for less than $4K.
PS: The Plus price direct for the HE3200 should be about $2500.



[This message has been edited by JDB001 (edited October 28, 2002).]

JDB001,

As the instigator of the digital amp threads, I have to say you're just flat out wrong. As I've already written here already...

The eARTWo digital amp sounded FAR better than the other digital amp I already had, and two other solid state amps I owned (and still own).
There are lots of these same remarks and direct comparrisons to lots of great amps on the HDforum. Including it being called better than $30K Mark Levinson Monoblocks, the $10K TacT Millenium, Krell, Jeff Rowland, etc..

If you think all these amps sound just like Outlaw's or Rotel's you're wrong.
And man I WISH it were true!!
I wish my $200 Axiom bookshelf speakers in my bedroom sounded like my Newform Research 45" ribbons, but they just don't.

If you haven't heard them... don't claim I'm wrong.

I'm not made of money and it really kinda hurt to part w/ what the eARTWo cost me, but the diff. was clear and obvious, as the diff amps were the only variable in the mix.

If not I'd have just kept using the $350 solid state amp I own right???
I had no interest in spending lots of money. I didn't buy it to impress you or anything.

That was what the first digital amp was supose to be -all the benefits of digital amps, but pretty low price). It just wasn't nearly as realistic as the eARTwo. It was really obvious how dry and processed the first amp was compared to the eARTwo. Before the eARTwo, I really liked the other amp too!
I just read that the eARTwo was SOOO great, so I thought, it can't hurt to hear for myself if this is all just silly audio voodoo kinda talk (like you seem to be acting like here).

Even my wife (who's not into audio like I am) totally agreed with what I heard, and I told her if she didn't hear a BIG diff that I'd send the eARTwo right back. And I would have. It cost too much to have it only be "a little better", or "hard to tell but I think it's probably better?" Anything like that and it woulda got shipped right back.

She agreed that the diff. was BIG.

It would've cost me ~$30 to send it back if I didn't want it, and get full moneyback refund. Designer Peter Thomson's great to deal with and emailed me answering all the questions I asked in great detail. Some too much detail that was over my head engineer-wise -since I ain't one.

You should try it before you make opinions about what you haven't tried. The eAR250 is cheaper.

My Newform Research are pretty eff. speakers too (~91db) so NONE of the amps come close to clipping ever.

And I'll agree that they all list their specs as showing basically zero distortion, but clearly these specs aren't as accurate as you'd like to believe. What's the spec for the S/N ratio of the 950 say?

As to DLP FP's... As Iggy stated... your numbers are off.

If they were right, obviously Outlaw would be making exactly what we'd all like them to make at the price you claim they can make it.
They said themselves a looong time ago that they wanted to make a FP, so it's not like they just don't want to anymore.

Infocus, Plus, NEC just make and sell them about as cheaply as possible.

Maybe Outlaw could go a little lower somehow in making only one specific Outlaw model, but not cheaply enough to keep it from being a BIG risk for them.

Within 6 months the 'big boys' would be able to match Outlaw's price for sure, and 6 months later beat it or offer better performance for the same cost. They already do this without Outlaw trying to compete with them.

New projectors come out VERY fast from the 'big boys'.

That fast turnover in product is certainly NOT what Outlaw is looking to compete with.
Again... something I stated a long time ago here.

Look at how they still haven't updated the 1050. It's still great of course, but there's cheaper more fully featured Recs. that have been called as good sounding or better.

Well, maybe not. Many 'high end' amps are pretty dismal performers in the areas that have been proven to be audible, even if only marginally so. So if there are audible differences and the measurements say 'this is whats audible' it seems pretty easy to figure out what's going on, unless you happen to be the guy who just bought the latest 'state of the art' SET amp....

But that's off the topic.

Owl's_,

"I just read where LG.Philips LCD has unveiled a 42" LCD display. You read that right, 42" LCD... not plasma."

The Ultimate Electronics (chain store) by me has had quite a few LCD screens for months. If you're in a big city, I think you should be able to find some to see for yourself -though I guess not that Phillips yet.

"If this trend continues, I think the majority of home users would migrate to large panel LCD's in lieu of projectors. This thing boasts a viewing angle greater than 175 degrees and is only about two inches thick!"

I doubt the viewing angle. LCD off axis looks horribly solarized, unlike plasma that just looks a little dimmer, or rear projections that look dimmer still. LCD in just flat out unwatchable.

The sets I've seen all looked awful. The worst pictures in the store. I think Samsung or Sharp is the name making the first big push. Not prized brands, but I don't think you'll see any great LCD screens from great TV makers Pioneer, Toshiba or Mitsubishi.

It's cheaper than plasma, but it looks it. Black level is no better than gray so the picture's flat and dull. The pixel gaps are pretty noticable too. Worse than any other technology I think.

Even more so than w/ plasma (something I never liked about plasma either).

They're still more costly than an HD CRT RP which (execept for space savings) blows the LCD's away in every way including screen size. 42" is just not very big at all ither IMO.
Actually in a screen that small to can get a tabletop RPTV. The LCD is still thinner, but worth much when pic. quality is so poor.

42" is about the smallest plasma or rear projection tv you could get. I'd call it the smallest of a 'med sized screen'. Tiny for a 'Big Screen'.
I'd call 0"-~40" a Small screen...41"-79" Medium, and ~80+" Large.

My 65" Mitsu. was 3 grand a year ago and makes all the smaller screen LCD's look like a joke quality and cost wise.
It's a BIG black box, but if you're gonna have a big screen against one of your walls does it make a huge diff. if it sticks out a 3" inches or 20"?

If my 65" was 2" deep I'd have to mount it on a stand to bring it closer to my couch anyway. Can't move the couch to the TV 'cuz it's set for optimal speaker and room placement.

If you want to see LCD screens just go to the computer store and look at the LCD monitors. Exact same technology (minus the built in TV tuner). Apple's widesceen LCD looks better than any LCD tv's I saw though.
Still can't beat CRT.

"Projectors will still be the order of the day for displays over about five or six feet, but I think most users would find a large screen LCD a better fit. Shorter cable runs, quieter, and no bulbs to burn out. Of course, still just my opinion. What do you guys think?"

I think DLP rear projections will beat LCD in price and quality (once DLP beats CRT -in some ways it already has but not all).

DLP's are not as thin, but a 17" deep screen ain't very deep, and can be a tabletop model with space below it like LCD and plasma.
DLP RP's might not be as light as a same sized LCD (not sure?), but they're lighter than plasma (people always forget how much plamsa sets weight) so you could mount it in the air on a shelf gaining space below.
DLP has a 100% solid pixel structure (unlike the big ugly gaps LCD, subtle but noticable gaps in plasma, and tiny but invisible gaps in CRT), and if you want a huge sceen in your room, you obvioulsy have to have the wall space available right?

I mean, what would you do with the extra 15" of space you'd gain from having an LCD screen? Might be a nice 'bonus' in a tiny room, but not too many tiny rooms with 50-65" screens. Electronics stick out as much as RP's in most people's rooms. Speakers even more so.

The new DLP RP's w/ the HD2 chip look like they'll finally make the CRTs 'get scared'. Once these DLP sets hit CRT prices... CRT is extinct (something I said last year). Still several years till that day though I think.

I don't like the light blub thing either in DLP's, but the RP's are typically rated at ~10,000 hours unlike the far shorter front projectors. And should have silent fans at your seating position.

Plasma sets get VERY hot too, and have IMO risky life spans esp. for the rediculous prices that they are.. and may very well always be.

I actually don't think there's anything I like about plamsa or even less about LCD. It's very bright, but it doesn't look like film IMO, like projector designs do (both rear and front).

Liquid Crystal on Silicon (LCoS) looks to someday be more affordable than DLP (it's like a combo of DLP and LCD technology -sort of). Still seems like the production runs of these display chips is still poor though... Someday this'll be the best technology though I'll bet. Just a guess of course.

I have to say this [and what I snipped] is almost exactly what I think too. DLP is very young and once it is matured it has a bright future ahead of it. I'm not sure about RP LCD being better, the technology behind the DLP stuff (micro-machines, etc) is very hot right now and it's hard to say how good DLP will become eventually.

I just like it because of all the technologies out there it is nearest to a film look in the realm of coloration so far, at least to my eye.

I'm just glad I don't have to chose right now! I figure by the time my IDTV is seriously showing age and there is plenty of HD content these sets should be less costly and much improved.

Charlie,

I'm not sure if you were thinking I was saying RP "LCD's" may be better than DLP solutions in the future?

Just to clarify... I was saying "LCoS".
These chips have been in the JVC FP's for years and while super costly projectors... often called the best.
The highest brightness (usually just a bulb thing though), closest pixel gap, and highest rez chips).

LCoS is a single LCD chip that acts almost exactly like a DLP chip in that it has a light reflecting backplane, and the LCD turns from black to clear creating a grayscale image.
DLP does this exact same thing by moving actual micro mirrors back and forth.

My thought is that while costs on the DLP chips keep going down as TI gets better and better at making 'em... LCoS chips should be far cheaper to make.

For some reason the companies that are making them are still not able to do a very good job at it though??? Samsung was to have an LCoS set out by now (RCA too) but they switched to DLP because (as far as what I read) the LCoS chip supply was poor and they didn't good black level.

Neither of these should be probs for LCoS though, and it was just a manufac. prob (I think).

LCD front and rear projectors use 3 sepp. red green blue LCD panels and pass light through. They typically have poor pixel gaps and poor black level, and a inefficient light-wise.

LCoS can have tighter pixel gaps than DLP (but both in HD res chips are perfectly 'solid' IMO).

While 3-chip DLP's are VERY costly, 3 chip LCoS should be pretty cheap, and then to have zero 'rainbow' issues.

I had to send my Plus Piano back 'cuz I say occational rainbow, but my wife saw it like crazy and I never told her what it was (for fear she's subconsiously start looking for it).

From the early model RP DLP's I've seen, I haven't noticed any rainbows, but never did any at home tests.

I've also seen stuck pixels on several front and rear DLP projectors so that worries me too.
The process of moving mirrors w/ static electricity seems to be less refined a concept than turning LCD pixels on/off.

But obviously (like the gasoline engine) if a so-so idea gets a LOT more R&D than other better 'ideas' the so-so one can end up being the champ in the marketplace.

That new 43" Samsung RP DLP should look awesome. It lists for $4K, so maybe ~$3.6-ish in stores.

Still over a grand more than a FAAAAR bigger CRT RP screen. Once LCoS ramps up it should have the best shot at beating CRT in price I think.
DLP chips will stay very costly for a long time I think.

Silicon Light Machines created the GLV chip and Sony aquired the rights to develop it. That was years ago, and still nothing from Sony, but the awful looking LCD Grand Wega.

It's like a DLP chip, but instead of mirrors on hinges for pixels, it uses curved metal ribbons attached at both end. Static elec. pulls the ribbon center in to deflect light.

Unlike DLP,LCD, and LCoS that all have 2D chips, the GLV is only one row of pixels. It's fast enough to change this row as a mirror scans the picture across the screen.

By design has ZERO pixel gaps, and to make a 1080P (that's P not I!!) the chip needs only 1080 vertical pixels. Then it gets scaned by a mirror across 1920 sections.

All the other digital designs need well over 2 million to do this.

A chip that can do 1080P and has 1920 times less pixels should be dirt cheap to make. And super easy to make three sepp. R,G,B rows on one chip.

I think the trick is concentrating the light onto this narrow row. I think Sony meant for this to go into movie theater systems before home systems, but no word even on that front.

This should blow away all othe technologies by a looong shot. And you can imagine how easy it would be to advance to even higher resolutions baced on this 1D design.
Personally I'd be plenty happy with a 1080P with a mint upconverter to max it out w/ OTA-tv, and HD-DVD's!!! -heh

And what about light bulb technology?.... I read about RF bulbs years ago and still no projector uses them. Not even seen a prototype design!?!?

It's Argon gas in a quartz sphere lit by RF waves. Amazing!

Very long life span. VERY bright (a marble-sized bulb should be good enough for a decent front projector). Perfect 6500K color white light. No filiment to burn out. No dangerous pressure unlike the tremendous high pressures current bulbs are under (and explode from). And best of all (living in AZ)... no heat! There goes your fan noize/cost, and light leakage from air vents.

So where are they???? The idea works. The U.S. Dept. of Energy building is supose to be lit by RF bulbs (and fiber optics to send the light all over the place).

You are correct - I misread you.

The GLV thing sounds really good. The thing that makes me like the micro-machine implementations is that this is an area that is getting tons of research $$$, not so much for this particular application, but for all kinds of things. Also when things are moving on this scale they really are not behaving in the same manner as other 'moving parts' we are more accustomed to. Even at this early stage these tiny guys are able to display incredible reliability.

[This message has been edited by charlie (edited November 14, 2002).]

Guys:


GLV is finally going to be shown, or so we hear, at CES. The development is being driven on one hand by the "Electronic Cinema" market, and as Charlie offers, by another market on another hand. GLV (and DLP, for that matter) are in the generic category of "MEMS", or mineature micro-electronic systems. THeir ability to reflect/deflect light in one direction or the other has significant implications for switching optical data paths.

A friend of my master saw it in Japan at a show their last month, and it is rumoured to look good. Hopefully we'll see at CES.

By the way, GLV uses a laser as the light source, since, as noted, it is a line-scanned device.


But what do I know, I'm only a dog!

ARF ARF says Iggy, seeing if he can turn the HT on with his paws while the master is at work...

Yep. Micro Electronic Mechanical Systems are showing tremendous promise (and getting a ton of research $$$) in a broad range of feilds, including motion sensing, switching, optics to name just a few. This broad cross disipline appeal is what makes me think they actually have a chance in the relativly near future of being the next entrenched technology...

I hope the 'rainbow' issues can be fixed without resorting (once again) to a three source solution that brings back the convergence issues the current DLP systems so neatly fix. I'm waiting on the latest colorwheel stuff, hoping the switching speed and sequencing can be done well enough that a single source can be made to work.

In all honesty the newer DLP systems seem much better already, and I just hope they continue to improve it.

Charlie, you said..

"Also when things are moving on this scale they really are not behaving in the same manner as other 'moving parts' we are more accustomed to."

Hmm... We're are talking VERY SMALL, but not like it's so small that it's in the realm of quantum mechanics or things like that. (like atomic computer circuits that're in the works -stuff like that).
Not that I understand quantum mechanics, but the DLP mirrors are just tiny metal squares on hinge pins and static electricity makes them pivot back and forth. I 'think' that's all there is to the actual micro-mechanical element to the display chip. TI has some good pics on their web site showing the process.

"Even at this early stage these tiny guys are able to display incredible reliability."

DLP isn't very new. It's ~10 years old now I think? I think the early 90's it went from R&D to actual production? ...but I'll have to double check.
I know they've been supplying projector companies with chips for 'many' years though.

I guess I'd reserve the term 'early stage' and 'very new' to designs that don't have many years of full scale market production behind them.

Iggy, you barked,
"GLV is finally going to be shown, or so we hear, at CES."

About time! Sony had it in their hands for 2 years now. And this is 2 years after developer 'Silicon light machines' had a working prototype 1080P projector. They've had it built I think 4 years ago!

I forgot to mention some other cool things about the GLV system....The micro ribbons of the chip don't have to be either 'on or off' like DLP has to do.
They can 'partically deflect light' to create grayscale whereas DLP has to turn on/off super fast to do this. Not that the DLP chip doesn't do a good job on grayscale, just that it physically works WAY harder to do it.
The GLV ribbons aren't on hinges either so they can't ever get 'stuck' like DLP pixels can (and do).
www.siliconlight.com

"By the way, GLV uses a laser as the light source, since, as noted, it is a line-scanned device."

(the prototype didn't use lasers though, so it's not a 'must' I don't think).
I've heard that using lasers was the ultimate 'goal' though, and I really hope this has been what Sony's been working on this whole time, 'cuz it should be easy to downscale a laser based system for home use if they've got it to be bright enough for movie theaters!

Maybe it's gone hand in hand w/ developing the blue lasers for Bluray HD-DVD? Red, Green and Blue laser that's bright enough. That's all you need!

No more lightbulbs! Oh to dream.

If a three color laser system is developed it could be used in LCoS chips too. The lasers could get scanned across the 2D chips? 3 LCoS chips might be as cheap to make as a 3 row GLV chip? Not sure of course, but I could imagine them not being so far apart if both were in ramped up production.

Charlie you said -"I hope the 'rainbow' issues can be fixed without resorting (once again) to a three source solution that brings back the convergence issues the current DLP systems so neatly fix.

3 chip systems don't have any convergence issues (other than CRT which isn't 'chips'). CRT need's occational 'tweaking' 'cuz the guns heat and cool moving them out of sync just slightly (my dual subs probably help too!!).

3 chip systems are mounted together and do not ever move or need adjusting. 3 chip DLP is what the Tex. Inst. movie theaters systems use, and the best (most costly) home DLP front projectors.
All LCD projectors are 3 chip designs. Also w/ no convergance probs either.
A (laser-based) three element GLV system could actually place all three rows of ribbons on the same chip.

The benfit of 3 sepp. colors is that you can tweak each one on it's own. LCD almost always beats one chip DLP's in color -though now both are so refined both technologies are pretty great in almost every respect. You also eliminate having to have a spinning color wheel. No moving parts in a LCoS system.

Each DLP chip costs a fortune so a 1-chip that works as well is just a cost benefit. 3 chip LCoS should be about as cheap as LCD chips to make, and LCD is WAAAY cheaper than DLP. The cheapest projectors have always beem LCD, and they use 3 times the pixels as DLP (not that that makes them higher res of course since the pixels are RGB and overlap).

"I'm waiting on the latest colorwheel stuff, hoping the switching speed and sequencing can be done well enough that a single source can be made to work."

Yeah, that spiral colorwheel you mean? Is that in anything yet? They announced it over a year ago.
I hope it eliminates rainbows for everyone who's had a problem with them, but I'd really much rather have a fixed 3 color system where there can never be rainbows and you have full color control.

"In all honesty the newer DLP systems seem much better already, and I just hope they continue to improve it."

Yeah, I think it just comes down to 'refinement' and price dropping.

They'll be able to make higher and higher res chips over time, but for home HT use there's almost no point IMO. Don't get me wrong... "better's better" of course, but....

We're all still waiting for everything on TV being in 720P or 1080I (and w/o crappy blurry broadcast upcoverting standard def either!).
And Hollywood and the DVD group deciding on MPEG-4 or Bluray HD-DVD's (and a digital out) and then getting all the new releases into our local blockbusters on these formats.

Too bad this is what's going to hold us all back and the displays we own.

[This message has been edited by azryan (edited November 17, 2002).]

I'm talking MEMS technology in general. And no, it's not quantum physics, but where else can you swivel a mirror at 5kHz for years without even oiling the hinges....

Quote:

Charlie you said -"I hope the 'rainbow' issues can be fixed without resorting (once again) to a three source solution that brings back the convergence issues the current DLP systems so neatly fix.

3 chip systems don't have any convergence issues (other than CRT which isn't 'chips'). CRT need's occational 'tweaking' 'cuz the guns heat and cool moving them out of sync just slightly (my dual subs probably help too!!).

Up to a point, but any time you have 3 optical systems there is the potential. If I were a betting person I'd bet the DLP theater systems have a convergence adjustment (maybe even a mechanical one) somewhere. I'm actually on the fence - a spinning color wheel isn't really cool either, but overall I think it seems to be a better solution by a narrow margin.

The other stuff like bulb life etc. that folks complain about are non-issues to me. Just change the doggone lamp!

"I'm talking MEMS technology in general. And no, it's not quantum physics, but where else can you swivel a mirror at 5kHz for years without even oiling the hinges...."

Heh... yeah, true... but if they could oil them maybe there'd be no more stuck pixels?? Or if they had no hinges you'd eliminate the prob. too. The GLV does this and it's a MEMS design. LCoS solves this in another way.

Hmm... maybe teflon hinges for the future DLP chips? I'll just go email TI and tell 'em to do that. -heh

regarding 3 chip convergence -
"Up to a point, but any time you have 3 optical systems there is the potential. If I were a betting person I'd bet the DLP theater systems have a convergence adjustment (maybe even a mechanical one) somewhere."

It'd have to be mechanical if they did, but they don't. Neither do LCD displays.
The chips are all mounted in one housing designed to place them all exactly where they're supose to go, and they can't move. If the convergence isn't off when built, it'll never ever shift from perfect.

It'd be like you being worried about the chips on your motherboard moving around. They just can't in anyway what-so-ever.

"I'm actually on the fence - a spinning color wheel isn't really cool either, but overall I think it seems to be a better solution by a narrow margin."

Is that 'cuz you're worried about 3 chip convergence problems that don't exist? I'll try to find a link to a 3 chip module so you can see what it looks like...

"The other stuff like bulb life etc. that folks complain about are non-issues to me. Just change the doggone lamp!"

It's not the 5 minutes it takes to change a lamp... it's...

1) They're SUPER hot. Living in AZ this sucks bigtime as we only have summer and super-summer here.
2) They need fans to cool them which makes noise at least to some extent, and vents that typical leak some bulb light out. Added parts and design trouble.
3) They cost hundreds to replace.
4) They're all very fragile super high pressure bulbs. You never know when they'll 'pop', you just hope they last what they're rated.Get a fingerprint on 'em and they'll explode. If the fan doesn't cool them well enough (or if the power goes out or someone turns the system to off instead of standby) they'll explode.
5) They don't make perfect 6500K light and the light still needs to be split into RGB.

RF bulbs and/or laser would solve almost all these issues or at least improve them a lot.

Maybe, but I still doubt it. There may not be any way to move the chps, but without exception every precision optical system I've been around (astronomy is one of my hobbies, I just enjoy music) always gets out of alignment and has to be adjusted. I would guess the elusive 'adjustment screw' is somewhere else in the optical system, which is pretty complex with all the lenses, prism, etc.

Or maybe the fact that the distances involved are short and the pixels are (relatively) large mitigates the need for extremely accurate alignment. In any case nothing stays perfectly aligned. It may be small enough not to matter much - I don't know, but I'd think a (non - home) theater system would be more demanding. I just really hate it when I see color fringing in a black and white movie or predominately grayscale scene.

And as we've already discussed, the color wheel isn't exactly the most elegant solution I've ever heard of either, but I really do like the idea of a single optical system if possible.

As for the lamps, heat is an issue I suppose, but the DLP RPTV I was able to view was silent as far as I could tell - maybe the bigger cabinet (compared to FP) allows more control of light and sound leakage. And it seems like color temperature is also a non-issue since gamut is (or can be) controlled by the filter wheel, as HT projectors have no clear filter sections.

One thing I really like is the fact that the colors won't shift like CRTs can with age. Once in a while you pop in a new lamp (keep one or two around) and that's it.

If you think about it (and we seem to agree on this) the whole glowing phosphor idea is pretty hokey.

The TI three chip DLP system used in theaters has only one lens- not three. The three chips, used to produce red, green and blue, have their colors combined before entering the single lens used for projection onto the screen- therefore no convergence problems. This is pure digital technology, not analog.

I tend to agree with Charlie - there will be some convergence problem, even if the combined beam is through a single lense, it must be aligned at the start to over-lay correctly. But it should not be much of a problem with careful design and reasonable quality components in the projector light path, i.e., hold down the plastic content. For a home projector limiting the screen size to 70" - 120" diagonal I'll bet it could be done without expensive labor to align the system - no alignment necessary. A clean, simple design, straight-forward rectangular case, 3 chip DLP at 1280x720 would start to be worth the $10K+ being extracted for the current single chip "spinners" that do not even use the newest SCR wheel technology. The headache crowd would not have anything to complain about other than maybe the lack of full HD horizontal and vertical resolution. Full HD resolution in a projector - now I could go for that - a 3 chip DLP at 1920x1080p for $10K. The promise of "true" HD in the home without the projector being as big as the couch (as in CRTs).

"Maybe, but I still doubt it. There may not be any way to move the chps, but without exception every precision optical system I've been around (astronomy is one of my hobbies, I just enjoy music) always gets out of alignment and has to be adjusted."

You confuse the 3 display chips with the single optical output lens. Like 'steves' just tried to explain to you also.

"-Or maybe the fact that the distances involved are short and the pixels are (relatively) large mitigates the need for extremely accurate alignment."

No, the fact that the chips don't move at ALL means they need NO alignment.

"In any case nothing stays perfectly aligned."

Like I tried to relate to you before... the chips on you computer's motherboard don't un-align do they????
The 3 display chips I'm talking about whether LCD, DLP, GLV, or LCoS are all just computer chips that have their leads soldered to a one piece board/housing. No chip can move out of alligment from the others.

"I just really hate it when I see color fringing in a black and white movie or predominately grayscale scene."

Yes, that does suck. I totally agree. 3 chip displays can't EVER do that though. Hell.. if you threw a 3 chip projector across the room...
1) It'd break (duh)
2) The chips would STILL be alligned (unless the whole chip housing cracked open, but you probably couldn't even do that without hitting it with a hammer or something).

"-but I really do like the idea of a single optical system if possible."

As steves' said, there's only ONE lens in a 3 chip system.

Maybe you're thinking of CRT projectors, and you think a 3 chip projector has 3 lenses that need to line up. They don't.

Haven't you ever seen a picture even of an LCD projector? www.projectorcentral.com

They're ALL 3 chip systems, and ALL only have one output lens (which can't get un-aligned except with the screen (which can happen to ANY projector design), or out of focus (which, again.. can happen to ANY projector design), but even those can hardly happen if nothing touches the projector.

"-And it seems like color temperature is also a non-issue since gamut is (or can be) controlled by the filter wheel, as HT projectors have no clear filter sections."

DLP's don't have perfect color. Some are close. Close enough some might say (I might say 'close enough' for some myself), but in the past 3 chip LCD has always bettered DLP in color accuracy.

I had the Plus Piano for a 10 day trial. The color was pretty good (it has no clear segment), but the CRT I bought when I returned the Piano is much better.

I haven't seen any DLP's with that new 'spiral color wheel', so that might be damn near perfect, but a spinning wheel won't ever be as accurate as overlaying the three RGB colors as in three chip systems.
Why do you think TI uses 3 chip systems in their Theater projectors?

"One thing I really like is the fact that the colors won't shift like CRTs can with age."

CRT's don't shift with age. They shift from movement and heating/cooling cycles, and it's a very very tiny amount.
I tweak my CRT's guns about every month or so. It just takes a few minutes. Do it during a commercial and you'll never call it an 'issue'.

In fact I watched the B&W classic 'The Hustler' just last night (I give it a 9 out of 10) and there was zero color fringing. None. (Great sharp DVD transfer too!) and it's been at least a month since I tweaked the CRTs.

"Once in a while you pop in a new lamp (keep one or two around) and that's it."

You know you just described ~$1,000 in bulbs don't you? My CRT was $3,000, and should last 10 years at least. No bulb worries at all.

"If you think about it (and we seem to agree on this) the whole glowing phosphor idea is pretty hokey."

Hokey? How so? I guess I don't agree.

It might 'sound' outdated compared to all these new digital solutions, but my 65" CRT Mitsu. has better color than DLP (or 'as good' at worst), no motion blur like past DLP's I've seen, totally solid pixel structure even at 'too close' viewing distance, 1080i resolution, under $3,000 new, CRT guns that should last a decade based on several decades of longevity reports, and only needs occational few minute allignment tweaking (once a month at the very most).

If I listed these traits off and said it was a DLP set everyone would freak out over how amazing that would be.

Downsides... It's cabinet is 24" deep.
But any 65" screen is big in width x height, and 'up against the wall' might not be the optimal distance for someone with a thinner DLP rear PJ, or LCD or Plama direct view set, or front projector and screen.

If my 65" was only 3" deep, I'd still have it pulled out the ~30" it is now. I mounted my 80" screen I had when I bought the Piano this way since up against the wall was too far away (my seating is set for optimal sound so I couldn't just move the couch closer in).

I attached the screen to a removable frame (mounted to my 32" tv I also had in the room at the time). Took a long time to build and worked great. I was ticked I had to send the Piano back 'cuz of rainbows, but the CRT while slightly smaller screen, is much better in every other way.

There's the 'burn in' issue too, but the screen adjustements on my set and also on my Dish Net HD rec. allow me to fill the whole screen (like when watching Sat. or Over-the-air TV) in a very natural looking way. A little strech at the sides and a little cropping overall. Works great.

My buddy's got a 8 year old 50" 4:3 CRT RP, and for the past 2 years watches almost nothing but letterboxed DVD's on it. When he flips to local TV, I saw for myself that there's zero burn in.

This was my only worry with buying CRT (that and digital connections), but in the past year I have no burn in at all, and my wife and I play videogames on it for hours on it, and watch all movies at their correct aspect ratio so almost all of them have letterboxing. No damage at all.

I like the technology of an all digital solution, but they still can't top CRT in rear projection in almost any way, and it's still got some negative 'issues' in the front projection realm, but front projection (whether CRT or display chip) will always have 'the room is the cabinet' issue which can be tough to deal with in everayday use (unless you're a vampire and like your room pitch black at all times).

And for anyone who says they watch their front projector with some room light at times... While of course you can do this, it's just a plain fact that your picture is VERY washed out compared to a RP set.

CRT RPj and CRT FPj is not an issue. It does not matter the performance - they are to big and heavy - case closed. It's old tech on it's dying legs. If one does not have crane to install it or an extra 10 - 15 sq. ft. of space and a blank wall to give up permanently, which is the case with a majority of installations, then CRTs are a moot point. The only reason they exist is it's 50 yr. old technology that they know how to make for a few hundred bucks, and the buyers are unaware of alternatives. Front projection technology should be pushed and pushed hard - it is the future. Maybe plasma, but I doubt the price will get reasonable anytime soon for the 50" and more screens (and the technology is inherently heavy). Anything smaller is just a "big TV" and only verging on the theater experience. RP (box) DLPs and LCDs are OK if only to get the volumes up and cost down. I saw one of the new Samsung RP DLPs at Best-Buy the other day for around $3K using the new 1280x720 chips. Product volume is an issue, but you can't tell me that a "dinky" in size FPj at less than 1/20 the size should cost three times the price. We need for Sony to field a new "diffraction ribbon" system and get some competition going with DLPs. CRT Pjs are only for bidding time - not future market relevant.

JDB001,
You crack me up.
You say -"CRT RPj and CRT FPj is not an issue."

Sorry, but that's just YOUR narrow-minded opinion.

"It does not matter the performance - they are to big and heavy - case closed."

Well, performace actually does matter to pretty much everyone but you. And "case closed"? You seem to have 'control issues' to deal with.

"It's old tech on it's dying legs."
Half true. It's old tech. It's not even close to 'dying' though in rear projection, but you it of course is in front projection (which seems to be all you can think about).
Remember the basic design of all our cars are VERY old tech, but just like CRT has been refined continually over the years, and while a gas-powered car will be replaced with one or many of the high-tech alternatives that exist today... it ain't even close to 'dying' either.

"If one does not have crane to install it or an extra 10 - 15 sq. ft. of space and a blank wall to give up permanently, which is the case with a majority of installations, then CRTs are a moot point."


A crane? You gatta be joking 'cuz that's just dim. The delivery guys just rolled my 65" CRT into my house. Took 5 minutes. When I remodeled my HT room I just rolled the set into my kitchen for a month.

If it was a lighter 65" DLP It'd still be over 100 pounds and being an large shape, I'd have to have gotten my wife to help me carry it. Either way...no practical 'real world' difference.

"The only reason they exist is it's 50 yr. old technology that they know how to make for a few hundred bucks,-"

Well, that and the fact that it produces the best picture available for that low price, but you made it clear 'performance' doesn't matter to you.

"-and the buyers are unaware of alternatives."

While most consumers have no idea what alternatives they have about pretty much ANY electronics, the alternatives that exist should be right next to the CRT's to compare.

When I bought my $3K 65" Mitsu last year, there were two DLP sets for sale right there in the showroom. Both 50", had poorer black level, fast motion blur, and were $10K and $12K. Even if I had no idea what DLP was, the choice was still obvious.

At this point in time DLP sets are MUCH closer to CRT in performance and price, BUT they're still not there yet.
That new Samsung is still more costly, poorer color, poorer black level and smaller screen size. Check out the review of it in the latest Sound n' Vision.

"Front projection technology should be pushed and pushed hard - it is the future."

You forget or missed the point I made about the 'room being the cabinet' in front projection. Most people want to use their displays with room light on. Some can't even make their room's black enough for the occations they want to watch something at a FP's optimal performance.
This means FP will NEVER be 'the future'. It will always be a fringe segment of display technology.

"Maybe plasma, but I doubt the price will get reasonable anytime soon-"

Like I said, it will probably NEVER get down in price compared to equal performace alternatives, and it's life span is questionable too.

"-RP (box) DLPs and LCDs are OK if only to get the volumes up and cost down. I saw one of the new Samsung RP DLPs at Best-Buy the other day for around $3K using the new 1280x720 chips. Product volume is an issue, but you can't tell me that a "dinky" in size FPj at less than 1/20 the size should cost three times the price."

The size difference is mostly a plastic box. The main costs of these things are in the electrinic 'guts'. A tiny DLP FP is 'all guts' and like compact laptop computers.. costs more to pack so much into a tiny space. Also the optics of a FP are different and a VERY costly element. Also, a FP has to be FAAAAR brighter than a RP set. Smaller isn't cheaper.

We need for Sony to field a new "diffraction ribbon" system and get some competition going with DLPs."


Uh... I was the one who brought this technology up. And I said it was intended first for movie theaters, and later home systems, and it'll be years before there's any chance of that happening.

"CRT Pjs are only for bidding time - not future market relevant."

Shall I get out the ruler? We could settle all this for once and for all.

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

No need - it's over.

Matthew, do you have a penis obsession or what buddy?

This isn't the first time you've chimed in with cracks about 'pissing contests' or some such penis related subject. Does the size of my posts make you feel nervous and 'funny' inside?? hehe

Just messin' with ya' (I know my car's as tiny as yours so we're both comfortable in our manhood -heh), but it's like you think you're breaking up some kinda wild Neanderthals who're at each other's throats or somethin'?

It's just a debate. No big deal. No blood drawn or anything.

It's not my fault I'm good at making my points (when I feel the need to counter someone who basically says CRT is worthless old technology ignoring all it's still current massive benefits), or that I don't feel the least bit bad about correcting people who get something wrong in what they post (like two here kept doing about 3-chip convergence error -that doesn't exist, etc...).

You have anything to say related to projectors or what?

I mean that's what the thread's about and you obviously clicked here to see 'what's up'... even though you know as well as I do Outlaw is NOT making ANY projector any time soon. (or if they are, won't announce it till it's ready to ship).

Personally I think the recent comments here might help those who are looking to set up a new HT (which might be a TON of Outlaw customers) and would be interested in hearing about the current state of the art in ALL forms of displays (with their pros and cons).
Is CRT perfect? No.
Is any digital display? No... but here's what I think about all of them... (see previous posts).

That's info's helpful IMO.

How would you know? Are you sure? Would you notice if the CPU on your motherboard shifted 0.001 mm or raised one corner a few fractions of seconds of arc? I bet the chips on a typical circuit board do shift in relation to each other across a 60 degree F range enough to be optically detected. More to the point, I bet they shift a lot more in relation to the case, or maybe the hard drive.

Whether they shift an amount that is significant I couldn't say, but to say absolutely something is perfectly aligned (hint - not possible) and never moves is silly.



From the illustration on the DLP site I can see at least (1) variations in manufacturing the housing that holds the prizm and (2) variations in the prizm and (3) possible thermal shifts due to the housing expanding and contracting that could (actually will) happen. Now I've not examined an accurate drawing or done any math to see whether it's likely to be 0.1 pixel or 0.0000001 pixel error in the worst case, but error will be present due to unavoidable variations in manufactured parts.



This comment was intended with regard to the paragraph immediately preceeding it regarding color rendition. CRT phosphor fades (I'm told) as they age.



Actually the on/off nature of DLP is one of its' strongest good points to my mind, as accurate linear control of duration is simple compared to analog control of intesity.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited November 22, 2002).]

As interested as I am in measurable and repeatable results I'm afraid I must decline your kind offer.

I really have to disagree on this one. I expect to see FP become more and more marginalized until at some point it will probably even disappear from theaters, if we still have theaters by then. There may be a short surge in interest if we see the price drop in the near future, but in the long haul (50-100 years) I expect it to go the way of the vacuum tube.

Most folks don't want to mess with it. My 'ideal 2D display' would be a paper thin and flexable direct view system.

If i was putting together my 'Ultimate CharlieWare Home Theater' (tm) I'd certainly use FP, but I'm not an average TV consumer either. Most folks have a life and don't want to bother with all that fuss.

C'mon Charlie,

You can't win a debate by getting into goofy definitions...

You said 3 chip systems must have convergence problems and they must have adjustments to the convergence.
This is wrong and I was just trying to explain to you why they need no convergence EVER. If you want to nitpick what I say (which was only meant to help you understand), then I'll just leave it at you're wrong about 3 chip convergence problems.

Now you ignore this FACT and get into some dim playing with definitions of the word 'perfect'. That's just sad you sink so low trying to make yourself feel 'right'.

"Whether they shift an amount that is significant I couldn't say, but to say absolutely something is perfectly aligned (hint - not possible) and never moves is silly."

Yes, nothing's perfect. DUH. At an atomic level everything's shifting. Thanks Mr. Wizard.

Let's stick with the'real world' aplication though ok?

My point remains unchanged... 3 chip systems have NO convergence adjustments, because they have NO convergence problems. This is 'perfect convergence' in 'real world' terms since you will never see the fringing error.

"Now I've not examined an accurate drawing or done any math to see whether it's likely to be 0.1 pixel or 0.0000001 pixel error in the worst case, but error will be present due to unavoidable variations in manufactured parts."

As I already said... if the original chipset is perfectly converged it won't change. Obviously flaws in manufacturing will happen.
Those flaws don't get used though (or you can tell a chipset's bad if it does get used). Either way, your 'point' is pointless and you're just grasping at microscopic straws.

Just admit you didn't know what you were talking about and drop the convergence subject. You were just wrong. Pick a new detail to debate (...and to be wrong about -heh).

You're right about FP's, but then I made those points a few posts earlier. At least give me some credit by saying you agree with me before you just reword what I write ok?

"Actually the on/off nature of DLP is one of its' strongest good points to my mind, as accurate linear control of duration is simple compared to analog control of intesity."

So?
You make this point after my quote about DLP vs. GLV which is also digital . My point was that GLV is a more advanced version both technically and mechanically.

If you want to relate DLP to analog like CRT then I'll say...
CRT despite being analog produces a wider grayscale than DLP can (though DLP is getting really close as of late).
It's my opinion an all digital system will be better than CRT eventually, but we're still not there yet, and once there we'll still have to wait for it to get cheaper than CRT so we're a long way off from the death of CRT.

"This comment was intended with regard to the paragraph immediately preceeding it regarding color rendition. CRT phosphor fades (I'm told) as they age."

I thought you were still talking about convergence. I'll have to re-read that post.

Anyway, yeah I agree that phosphors do fade over time. It's VERY slow and over looong time though.

So I supose you then think a one-chip DLP wins in this respect then?

Well DLP color isn't digital... What do you think happens to that spinning color wheel that's being bombarded w/ a super high power/burning hot lightbulb 100% of the time when running?

Do you think the color wheel won't fade from this? It does.

It may in fact fade more than CRT does. I don't know which is worse, but both degrade over time yet last long. The color wheel has no 'real world' advantage over CRT here.

Remember the DLP's bulb dims over time too (and isn't uncommonly known to 'pop' before it's rated hours ...something CRT almost never does).

And color convergence problems due to a one chip DLP system is why many people (note- I didn't say 'all' OR 'most') have problems w/ rainbows with DLP.

Of course zero people have rainbow problems w/ 3 color systems like CRT, LCD, 3chip DLP etc...

I'm not sure what you're looking for in a display. Maybe we should talk about that?

Or maybe take my $3K 65" Mitsu. You don't like CRT I guess..., so tell me what would you want to make this set better in your opinion?

And I don't mean just tossing around 'specs'. I mean talking about points that will actually result in a better display for hopefully a better price.

IMO, CRT vs DLP is kinda like in audio speakers debating dipoles vs. monopoles or cones vs panels or ribbons vs. domes.
None are perfect, and some of it is opinion/preference, but speaker for speaker you can get down to 'real world' details and debate which elements are better.

Thousandths or ten thousandths of an inch are important when each pixel in the device is about 0.001" square. One ten thousandth of an inch shift would be 0.1 pixel....

Or, to assure no more than 0.01 pixel of misconvergence the original alignment would need to be within 0.00001" and stay that close forever. Do you have any idea how small that is? I'm not sure how much misconvergence one can see, but I suspect it falls somewhere between these figures.

[The pixels on an HD2 device are actually smaller than 0.001 by almost half IIRC]

I'm not here to win a debate. I'm here to discuss topics of interest. Maybe that's the problem.



Wrong! Nice strawman, although a bit rushed. If you work into it more slowly you can sometimes get them to bite before you burn it down.

What I said is:



Which is true. I've not seen any proof otherwise. If the system is carefully manufactured it my be a vanishingly small problem, but I don't know, nor do you, apparently. If you do, how much is the typical 3 chip DLP misconvergence? An answer of zero is the same as you don't know, BTW.



Not just at an atomic level. It is not uncommon in systems that have lots of thermal cycles to suffer stress related failures on the traces, devices and sockets. There is tremendous research on newer, lower coefficeint of expansion cicuit board materials for some classes of applications. Have you ever worked with really precision optics? I'm not talking small format SLR camreas either. I suspect the part of the board where the light hits the chips gets quite hot .... but who knows for sure? TI I suppose.



How many 3 chip DLP systems have you viewed. More to the point, how many have you serviced? Can you even cite a source?



Dunno - if I tried to answer I'd be guessing. Cite your source.

FWIW I never said the color wheel was a better solution - look back over the thread. I said they both have potential issues and I'm excited to see which is better once the technology matures. The reason (and I agree it's true) CRT has the lead at this moment is simply decades of R&D and millions of unit experience. It is about as good as it will ever get, and one or more of these emerging technologies will surpass it in the relatively near future.



Do you know what color misconvergence is? It's not the source of the rainbow phenomenon. Unless you're somehow redefining color convergence as something applicable to the temporal domain.



I have a RP CRT and I like it fine. I don't mean to hurt you feelings about your set - I'm sure it's better than what I'm currently using. Feel better?

I also drive a car with a gasoline powered internal combustion engine, but I'm not touting it as the future of powerplants, either.

BTW - I find your condescending attitude childish. I'm sure you're better than that, probably just having a bad day. Have a drink or two and enjoy your HT.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited November 26, 2002).]

You're not the first or last to say this. Cope with it.

"If I were a betting person I'd bet the DLP theater systems have a convergence adjustment (maybe even a mechanical one) somewhere."

This is exactly what you said. This is exactly what I meant by you're wrong.

"I'm not sure how much misconvergence one can see, but I suspect it falls somewhere between these figures."

Well, again... you 'suspect worng.
Like I said... lets' stick with the 'real world'.
3 chip systems look perfectly alligned to everyone. Ask around. There's millions of LCD projector owners out there. And lots of 3 chip DLP theaters across the country.

"I'm not here to win a debate. I'm here to discuss topics of interest. Maybe that's the problem."

If we disagree on an issue and we try to make points about how we're correct and the other isn't then we're 'dabating' these issues.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You said 3 chip systems must have convergence problems and they must have adjustments to the convergence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wrong! Nice strawman, although a bit rushed. If you work into it more slowly you can sometimes get them to bite before you burn it down."

I answered this in my post above.

"Which is true. I've not seen any proof otherwise. If the system is carefully manufactured it my be a vanishingly small problem, but I don't know, nor do you, apparently."

But I do know. I've told you over and over that all LCD projecotrs are 3 chip systems and no one has any problems with convergence. That's the 'real world' proof.

"If you do, how much is the typical 3 chip DLP misconvergence? An answer of zero is the same as you don't know, BTW."

Ooooh, a 'trick' question. hehe. My answer is -"Less than the human eye can perceive at any normal viewing distance". If you say that's not 'perfect' enough for you then you're fooling yourself or trying to fool me.

"How many 3 chip DLP systems have you viewed. More to the point, how many have you serviced? Can you even cite a source?"

You've already made it clear you have NO experience with these systems so why challenge me when you couldn't pass your own challenge???

I certainly don't need to service any DLPs to make the points I'm making. You're just being silly now.

I've seen several LCDs and the 3 chip DLP system that floats around the local theater chain. Zero convergence problems to the human eye at any normal distance.

You'll see pixel gaps before you see color fringing -since I actually walked up to the theater screen to look at the pixel structure out of curiosity and there was no color error.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well DLP color isn't digital... What do you think happens to that spinning color wheel that's being bombarded w/ a super high power/burning hot lightbulb 100% of the time when running?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dunno - if I tried to answer I'd be guessing. Cite your source."

The color wheel's plastic film. There's no plastic that can withstand this level of heat and light without fading over time.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And color convergence problems due to a one chip DLP system is why many people (note- I didn't say 'all' OR 'most') have problems w/ rainbows with DLP.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Do you know what color misconvergence is? It's not the source of the rainbow phenomenon. Unless you're somehow redefining color convergence as something applicable to the temporal domain."

I was trying to put it into simple terms that a color wheel causes color rainbow problems for people. This 'seeing color where it shouldn't be' could be called a diff. kind of color convergence problem though diff. from the 3 color overlay issue we've been talking about. Not too hard to understand it you tried.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Or maybe take my $3K 65" Mitsu. You don't like CRT I guess..., so tell me what would you want to make this set better in your opinion?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I have a RP CRT and I like it fine. I don't mean to hurt you feelings about your set - I'm sure it's better than what I'm currently using. Feel better?"

Who's calling who childish and condescending? You must be joking. That last remark was as bad as anything I've written. I don't claim to be a boyscout, but you can't make that 'high road' claim either.

I also don't claim my set's the best display imaginable. I certainly loved the picture of the HD DLP FP's I've seen (though still had some minor rainbow problems). I saw a 3 chip LCoS JVC FP's that looked amazing.

"BTW - I find your condescending attitude childish. I'm sure you're better than that, probably just having a bad day. Have a drink or two and enjoy your HT."

See my comments above. P.S.... I don't drink, but hey whatever you need to help get you through your day. -heh

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're right about FP's, but then I made those points a few posts earlier. At least give me some credit by saying you agree with me before you just reword what I write ok?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"You're not the first or last to say this. Cope with it."

My point was that I just posted these ideas in this very thread only a few posts before you. That's very diff. from me claiming I was the first person to ever think of these points, but you'll twist whatever I say to try to make a defence.



[This message has been edited by azryan (edited November 26, 2002).]

Supposing they probably have adjustments (what I said) and saying they must absolutely have adjustments are two quite different things. Can you see that?

Your assertion:



vs.



and



Also, be aware that adjustments can often take the form of an added step in 'final assembly' in the making of precision systems, which then become a potential area of re-adjustment later.

As I noted above, I doubt even modern manufacturing finds locating multiple devices in relation to each other with tolerances less than 0.0000055" (0.01 pixel error on HD2 chip) easy or simple. Magnify the need for precision by projecting the beam a few inches from a PCB to an prism/lens/etc. and the level of precision required is incredible.

Could it be done? Probably. Will it be done on a practical high volume of units scale? Tough to say.

Just out of curiosity, how big physically are the actual optical parts of LCoS and LCD devices?

Again, I'm not being intentionally combative, I just want constructive dialog.

OK. So must the convergence error be greater than 0.1 to be visible, or are errors smaller than 0.01 visible? You really didn't add any useful info here.

I notice there is a lot of quoting and not much new. I'd really like you to address this:



How so?

Also:



And while you're at it:



And maybe cite a source for:



And since we've already agreed (1) perfect alignment is unattainable and therefore it follows that some misalignment exists and (2) you assert it is not significant, can you support this by citing a source for or computing the actual amount of misalignment, or are you merely expressing your opinion it is not significant?

I'm OK with opinions (everyone has some), just not with opinions presented as fact.

Also, on a more constructive note, it occurred to me that one needn't restrict themselves to top->bottom scanning on some of the new systems. GLV for instance could be (it seems to me) arranged to scan 1080 from left->right (or right->left, whatever) and be an even smaller array.

Or even more interesting, if the scan was done this way and the array was a least common denominator of 480/720/1080 no external scaling would be needed - the projector could just gang a series of elements together.

For instance a GLV array of 4320 elements scanned from left->right would be able to directly display:

1080 - Gang 4 elements together.
720 - Gang 6 elements together.
480 - Gang 9 elements together.

Of course the same idea will work on a top->bottom scanned system, just with the need for a different sized array.

PS - Feel free to repeat this without citing the source, even though I believe it is an original idea.


[This message has been edited by charlie (edited November 26, 2002).]

"OK. So must the convergence error be greater than 0.1 to be visible, or are errors smaller than 0.01 visible? You really didn't add any useful info here."

Well, you edited my statement cutting off the 'useful' part. That's pretty cheap.

I said -Well, again... you 'suspect' wrong. Like I said... lets' stick with the 'real world'.
Ask around. There's millions of LCD projector owners out there. And lots of 3 chip DLP theaters across the country.

I guess you don't think the actual real world application of millions of 3 chip systems having no visible color convergence error is 'useful'??? Why don't you go look at ONE. You challenged me on my experience with them, and I told you my exp.

This is the same pathetic debate I had with you over my digital amp.

Where you would not just go LISTEN to one to hear the diff. yourself and tried to hide behind your sad 'missing data' defence. These weak 'data' questions just aren't needed to see/hear the 'real world' results in 'actual application'. And you should KNOW this.

"Supposing they probably have adjustments (what I said) and saying they must absolutely have adjustments are two quite different things. Can you see that?"

That's just NOT what you said. You just flat out wrongly guessed they had adjustments and I corrected you. Plain and simple as that.

What's your problem with understanding this fact?

"Again, I'm not being intentionally combative, I just want constructive dialog."

I don't mind if you're being combative or not, but you're certainly not being 'constructive' when you can't accept the fact that 3 chip designs don't need alignment. They are prefectly alligned as far as what the human eye sees at any normal viewing distance. All your 'data' measurments and guesses are meaninless when you can just LOOK at one of these displays and finally understand what I'm talking about. But you wouldn't want to be proved wrong so you ignore this.

If you want to debate something meaningless like the possibility of seeing a tiny hairline of misconvergence if you walk right up to a screen and stare at the pixels then it's a pointless debate.

Like I stated in my previous post... In the 3 chip DLP theater I've seen (the biggest screen display of a 3 chip system you're ever likely to see) I can see pixels once I walk so close that I'm not at any kind of 'normal viewing distance'... and I still don't see any color fringing error.

In the typical sub 12' size screens in home use your 'convergence' issue is even more pointless.

And you ignored my question about asking what you want in a display.
I think that'd be the best topic to follow here since it's the heart of what we're all looking to get -A better picture.

"GLV for instance could be (it seems to me) arranged to scan 1080 from left->right (or right->left, whatever) and be an even smaller array."

It DOES scan left to right. You should find out what it is and how it works before you say things like this.

"For instance a GLV array of 4320 elements scanned from left->right would be able to directly display:"

How do you define 'element' here? Whatever it is, it seems more complicated than what a 1080P GLV system is so I can't see why anyone would want to do that.

An array of 1080 vertical pixels can display 1080P and any lower resolution like the 480 and 720. The lower res. could be upconverted to 1080P internally and look better than 480P or 720P look natively.

HTPC users upconvert DVD's all the time to the native resolution of their projector improving the DVD's resolution beyond it's native 480P. The best native res. we can get it 1080i so a 1080P system can handle and improve every current common display resolution.

"PS - Feel free to repeat this without citing the source, even though I believe it is an original idea."

Yeah.. well we'll see if Sony can figure out what you're talking about then implement it. -heh

I've heard that images could be 'improved' but in practice I've never watched or heard of a scaler that was artifact free. By using a multiple of 480/720/1080 no scaling would be required. I like simpler where possible.

Also, I noticed that to modulate the intensity in a scheme like a GLV array there will be two basic ways, both with issues.

One could use a digital duty cycle modulation scheme (like DLP) and get very accurate results, but there would be in effect a binary stream of 1s and 0s (on spots and off spots) of sub-pixel size as the devices are switched on and off. Since they switch very fast it might not be noticed, as direct view color masks are not too noticable in most cases. Also, if more of one color is needed there will be places within the pixel where one 'pure primary' color shows unlike DLP, agian like direct view systems. This seems like it could reopen the door to moire problems if not treated with care. Also, if one used the concept of a larger than native (4320, etc.)array dithering could be used as needed.

The other option (according to you - i've not verified it) would be to use analog to modulate the GLV. This seems like a bad idea to me, but I'd need more info.

And back to our regularly scheduled programming:



Please cite a source to confirm 3 chip DLP theater systems have no convergence adjustment.

Here are my exact words:



As in (looking at a fast motorcycle) 'I bet that sucker can go over 160 mph easy'. It is a statement of expected or suspected fact, not an absolute statement of fact. I suspect anything not nailed down and thus not subject to piecework attack is bothersome to you and therefor understand that you feel some deep emotional need to nail it down and stomp it. Have fun, and then I suggest anger management courses before you piss someone off IRL that carries a gun or something. Beyond that, I have little interest in arguing over words. If you want that maybe former President Clinton can help you discuss what is is.



I'll make it simple for you. I said I suspect a convergence error of 0.1 pixel would be visible and 0.01 would not. You said I was wrong. So the possiblities are (1) error must be over 0.1 to be visible, (2) errors smaller than 0.01 are visible, or (3) you were wrong, or at least confused.

Please choose.

BTW I'm still waiting for a quantified specification of how much convergence error to expect (look up the big words if you have to) on a typical 3 chip DLP system, or a simple statement that your experience with 3 chip in general and a bit of 3 chip DLP in particular leads you to suspect (!} it is not a problem. In other words, if you have facts, spit 'em out, if not, be mature enough to say you have an opinion and strongly believe it to be correct. Presenting opinion as fact is weak.



I guess I missed the part where you told me how you knew DLP theater systems have no convergence adjustments, I'm sorry. Can you cite that source again? Thanks.

I'm curious how big the LCD projector devices are (optical part) since a bigger size imaging engine could make manufacture easier. Any idea? Any sources for this info?



I can almost agree on that statement.

Typical PCB materials display a CTE of ~17, and all materials display a CTE. A misalignment of 0.000055 (55 millionths) of an inch would cause a color registration error of 0.1 pixel on an HD2 device. This is well under the amount of movement the CTE of a PCB would typically be expeced to exhibit. Thus I am concerned about potential problems. I'm not asserting they cannot be engineered around. Engineers are resourceful people.

One last thing before you move on - can you explain in detail again the part about how color misconvergnece in single chip DLP systems causes the 'rainbow' effect? My understanding was it was due to time differences in the projection of the various colors and had nothing to do with the 'dots' failing to hit the same spot on the screen.

"I've heard that images could be 'improved' but in practice I've never watched or heard of a scaler that was artifact free."

Obviously you need hard to find 'data' to confirm things that people can just tell you or you can find out for yourself. I'm not a font of technical specs, but I don't have to be. Try AVS forum and you can talk to tons of HTPC owners who can tell you how upconverting DVD's can look better than the native 480P format. The artifact issue doesn't come up because you start with such a hi res format to begin with and the upconversion does far more good than any noticible harm, but YES there must be some form of damage.

Does this matter when the end result is a sharper picture that every HTPC user agrees looks better than the original DVD? No. Feel free to disagree without ever seeing this upconversion. It's your loss.

"By using a multiple of 480/720/1080 no scaling would be required. I like simpler where possible."

It's not simpler when you have an array that's made up of 4 times as many pixels as the original 1080P GLV design. But to clarify, this is still a lot less pixels than DLP needs in a 2D array. I mentioned before about how it's very easy for the GLV design to drastically increase it's resolution.

Let's just see if Sony even gets this sucker into production. and then into our homes and then increase the resolution to the range you suggest. I think I won't hold my breath, but I'd sure welcome it as much as you would.

"Also, I noticed that to modulate the intensity in a scheme like a GLV array there will be two basic ways, both with issues.-" "-but there would be in effect a binary stream of 1s and 0s (on
spots and off spots) of sub-pixel size as the devices are switched on and off."

You'll have to clarify your point here.

-"as direct view color masks are not too noticable in most cases." Yeah, mine isn't noticble at all.
Have you looked at current CRT HD RPTV's. from any reasonable distance they're rock solid.

"Also, if more of one color is needed there will be places within the pixel where one 'pure primary' color shows unlike DLP, agian like direct view systems. This seems like it could reopen the door to moire problems if not treated with care."

I'm not sure about the details of this train of thought.

"The other option (according to you - i've not verified it) would be to use analog to modulate the GLV. This seems like a bad idea to me, but I'd need more info."

Uh huh. Bad. Well, you do need more info.

Personally I'm only going by the reports I read years ago from people who actually saw the 1080P prototype FP in action. At the time the reporter from www.twice.com called it the best looking picture he's ever seen. There's a pic of the display in action on the GLV's web site not that you can tell anything for that pic other than the system does work and does exist (and has since 1998 or 99).

"Please cite a source to confirm 3 chip DLP theater systems have no convergence adjustment."

I saw pictures of the actual entire light engine on TI's web site, and read where they explain how the three chips are mounted so that they're alligned and don't need convergence.

I can't find it there anymore, but it might still be there. There's lots of DLP info still there.

I don't care if you don't believe this, there's already so much that you don't believe and won't even consider possible... let's just add it to your list of things you refuse to understand.

I'm not going to address your remarks on convergence again. That's beyond enough for me. If you don't get it by now you probably never will.

You may not have seen my remarks in a previous post. I changed computers during the post and had to go back and edit it to post what I meant to. By then you had already posted several times.

Go back and read my comments on my actual viewings of a 3 chip DLP system and LCD projectors.

"BTW I'm still waiting for a quantified specification of how much convergence error
to expect (look up the big words if you have to)-"

No need to insult. I answered this question in an above post.

"Presenting opinion as fact is weak."

Yeah... I present actual 'real world' application results from countless 3 chip system users. The 'fact' element is that they all (including myself) see no color convergence error at any normal viewing distance. I guess seeing no color error isn't good enough for you? Your loss.


"I'm curious how big the LCD projector devices are (optical part) since a bigger size imaging engine could make manufacture easier. Any idea?"

Yes, but why waste my time for you?

"-Any sources for this info?"

Why don't you go find your own info? Why ask me? You don't believe anything I tell you anyway. That info isn't hard to find. I know this info and othe related subjects like LCoS light engines and more about the GLV system than you. Go find out for yourself.

"One last thing before you move on - can you explain in detail again the part about how color misconvergnece in single chip DLP systems causes the 'rainbow' effect?"

I explained what I meant in my edited post above.

"My understanding was it was due to time differences in the projection of the various colors and had nothing to do with the 'dots' failing to hit the same spot on the screen."

Yes, since that's not possible with a one chip system. That's not what I meant though. Read what I wrote.

And you YET AGAIN ignore me asking 'what you want in a display' which should be the point of this thread. If that's of no interest to you then I won't answer anymore of your questions.

Actually, why AM I answering them anyway? You'll never 'get it'. Like you never tried the digital amps I told you about to HEAR the difference for yourself, you'll probably never SEE a 3 chip LCD or DLP system to see the actual color alligment in real life for your own eyes.

But hey... what would be the point of THAT right? Actually seeing ang hearing the real world results of theses designs... pointless right!?

I give up on you. Go hide behind your 'data crunching' as you refuse to live in the real world and see/hear these things you only wish to debate in theory.

Yeah - now that you edited it has more content. I read the original and thought, huh, that's all quote!?!???!!

You're usually much more verbose than that!



I was actually looking for a number. As in a quantity. Anything else is mere opinion, although it may be correct. And note that I'm not saying the above is wrong (or right either), just that it's not useful to me.

I have very good uncorrected vision, and for instance I can see the lines 'between' pixels on the Zenith 9K projector I watched (the same one I noted scaler artifacts on) so I'm concerned with any technology that has discrete pixels and multiple color sources. I don't think concern is unreasonable given the dearth of actual products to test and fiddle with.



Why should I believe functionality from LCD maps to DLP? And do you have a service manual for the LCD projector? If not, how do you know there's no adjustment?



How was that clear?



I've never looked at a color wheel in person, so I can't say, but I do know that most high quality filters are glass, and that dyes and pigments (even in plastic) vary in resistance to fading. So I still don't have an answer. Saying something is so doesn't prove it to be so, no matter how much you say it. Got any accelerated aging figures, or just guessing?



Actually it is much simpler. Switching 4/6/9 devices on at the same time to widen the effective scan line, then dumping the raw data into the device is trivial, unlike doing artifact free scaling which is impossible. Scaling can be very very good, but there will always (as long as computing power is finite) be some loss. I'd welcome at least the option to view without a scaler. And as you noted, 4K devices is still a pretty low count compared to other technologies.



Basically - wow, this is hard without a drawing. Imagine the scan 'bar' as it crosses the screen. As it enters the next 'pixel' the elements switch on. As it scans across the with of the pixel, at some point, depending on the intensity of the image in that pixel, it will switch off. Thus the 'brightness' of any discrete point on the screen will be 100% or 0%, a 1 or 0, although the average brightness for the area of the pixel would be correct.

Now imagine 3 colors, a non gray pixel, and you can see that not all the red will always be covered with blue, etc. Might be OK (esp since the resolution is so high) but they may need to dither to prevent moire.



Um, yeah, that would be because they have no color masks. Only color direct view sets use color masking to allow a single tube to generate multiple colors. Look really close at a direct view tube and you'll see the masking. Just one of the many reasons I actually like RPTV images better than direct view.



Yeah - I saw it somewhere too. It also didn't show the electrical connections, fasteners and other construction details, but I bet (as in I suspect) it has those too. A service manual or physical inspection is probably the only way to be sure, although the word of an experienced tech would be close to definitive.



I appreciate your input. I believe you saw no issues. Good for you. The fact you didn't see it doesn't mean it cannot exist. Do you understand that? It proves nothing except you cannot see any problem. There may or may not be a problem, and the fact that you see nothing encourages me to like the 3 chip concept but proves nothing else.

Perhaps as an artist you are more in touch with your inner child or something, but as an engineer I need actual proof. If that frustrates you, join the club. But there are guys who think like me and approach problems like I do that are right now getting the next great piece of gear ready for you to enjoy, so a rational approach is not without benefit.



It seems you have done some research on LCD and LCoS and I have not, so I was hoping that, as a courtesy, you would share any knowledge and even better, sources, with me and by extension all who might through some twisted sense of curiousity still be reading this thread.



Well now that you have added more to the original post it makes sense, but the original post was senseless to me.



You're not really very much, so whatever. I'm asking for facts and getting anecdotal evidence. They are distinctly different things.

And:

What I want in a display? For a 2D system I want a 1 mm thick flexible film direct view system that can display at 1200 dpi and 48 bits of color, 100 fps and should cost $5 per square foot. I'll use it for wallpaper.

I'll need some time to think about 3D, but I doubt there's any hurry.

You asked.

I'll be adding to the digital amp thread soon, as I'm finishing some measurements on my home system. It measures pretty well, but I'll post results there after the measurements are confirmed.


Have a good one.

Bringing some info to the table here to bat around. I ran into some items doing some quick surfing, as we will probably be purchasing another TV for a gift so I’m looking (again at the moment) into the current products. The debate in this thread centered on which technology will become the most prevalent in future projectors and Direct View had me digging for specifics on the topic. Azyran you had some excellent points that sent me off to dig for LCOS based products but I ran into some discouraging information. Regardless of the merit of which technology should earn the backing dollars of large manufactories. I wonder. First the manufactories have to get the products to us…..to see which the masses will jump to and on….and some of what I found does not look good for Locos at THIS moment. I ran into multiple names just putting on the market their various versions of LCD and DLP including but not limited to: Samsung, Sharp, Philips, Mitsubishi. Yet I ran into this announcement concerning the withdrawal of the
LCOS based Scenium L50000 dated July 2002.
http://www.insightmedia.info/news/ThomsonSTORY.htm

On the opposite side is this Co in CA promoting their LCOS components for manufactories.
http://www.elcos.com/ and I also ran into a company (can’t remember whom) who just sold a large double order for their equipment to 2 undisclosed company’s for inspecting LCOS based panel production.

I was really surprised to find ‘LCD’ related products popping up all over the web. When I purchased my Sony it was hard to find. Now I note that over at AVS forum the GW11’s seem to be sparking a lot of interest with at least 3 purchasers Choosing the Sony over the latest Samsung DLP displays.

So my question for this honorable board of debaters is: Do you think that the sheer momentum of more manufactories seeming to head to LCD for many new model releases currently in both projection and Direct View, Will sink LCOS ship before it sails? Here is a VERY interesting Industry overview on some of the problems in the industry LCOS might have to overcome.
http://www.insightmedia.info/news/LCOS%20Leadership%20Needed.htm

Here is one reviewer not convinced about Philips promoting LCOS single panel.
http://www.emedialive.com/r13/2002/next8_02.html
The first reviewer was just roaming the show. The Second reviewer to balance the opinion had an appointment with Philips
http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/frame.html?http://www.whatvideotv.com/articles/interviews/200201_DougStanton.shtml
Reading those two reviews alone, I think I conclude that Philips thinks it is positioning to able to produce the LCOS technology by cutting the past costs to target the in between plasma and CRT crowd. But several other LCOS sets I saw reviewed which never made it to market exhibited problems and were dropped from lineups in recent past years.
So I wonder can Philip (or anyone) put out something that looks so good at a VERY desirable price point which will have the rest backing away from the seemingly current LCD trend to shift towards LCOS?
Philips is BIG maybe they will provide the ‘Leadership’ mentioned as lacking in the In Sight Media link.

Remember I how I stated I found the real room effect of my Sony’s poor black level, to not be an issue for me personaly, and that I felt it was an incredibly good display as regards dealing with ambient light issues?
Ran into this…which has thoughts about this subject as compared to plasma.

“Clarity points out that simply looking at the brightness and contrast spec of a panel is insufficient for understanding how well it will look in a normal ambient environment (40 foot-candles). For example, the phosphors in plasma screens reflect quite a bit of ambient light, about 15%. But LCDs' reflectivity is much lower, around 2.5%. The result is that a plasma panel with 3000:1 dark room contrast will have an actual contrast of about 38:1, whereas an LCD panel with 600:1 and lower reflectivity produces an actual contrast of 109:1.

Clarity takes this "viewability" analysis one step further. It defines a Quality Viewing Metric (QVM) as the product of the panel's peak brightness times its contrast in ambient light. This makes good sense to us as a more logical way to evaluate the actual image quality of a display.

Accordingly, the 131 Ft-Lamberts of brightness for the LCD panel yields a QVM of 14,370. The higher peak brightness of the plasma panel-- 228 Ft-Lamberts-- times a much lower ambient contrast produces a QVM of 8,990. This analysis says that the LCD panel looks better in normal lighting conditions.”
Clarity, Ed Kiyoi, 503-570-0700, http://www.clarityvisual.com/

This is a Company biased report however and they are starting to promote commercial message boards in LCD.


Enough links for one post!!!. What do you guys think?

I am! I'm finding the discussion very intriguing. I've been interested in these different technologies but haven't had the time (ok... haven't made the time) to investigate them. I feel like I'm getting the crash course introduction here! Thanks guys! Oh, SLL, thanks for the links. I'll be investigating them soon!

SLL:

I tend to be cautious, so take this with a grain or two of salt, but IMO it's way too early to call a winner reliably. It's pretty clear that CRT is near its' peak and due to be overtaken, but which one (or ones) of the newer technologies will jump forward is still up for grabs I think.

I would tend to favor the MEMS based devices because (1) the technology is young and promising [always a good sign] and (2) there is tremendous R&D investment for a huge variety of MEMS applications outside imaging.

In the short term - CRT still rules the roost overall.


Just, as always, IMO and YMMV

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).

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).]