"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.