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).]