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:
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.
Please cite a source to confirm 3 chip DLP theater systems have no convergence adjustment.
Here are my exact words:
If I were a betting person I'd bet the DLP theater systems have a convergence adjustment (maybe even a mechanical one) somewhere.
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.
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.
You replied: Well, again... you 'suspect worng.
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'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 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.
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?
This is the same pathetic debate I had with you over my digital amp.
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.
Previous Topic
Index
