Well, here is my original supposition, just based on a knowledge of optics and production line issues:
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.
And you said:
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.
No, the fact that the chips don't move at ALL means they need NO alignment.
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.
My point remains unchanged... 3 chip systems have NO convergence adjustments...
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.
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: And again, we're mostly talking about historically poor quality companies like Samsung,....
But I didn't say anything about the Koreans -for the record.
!?!??!?!
"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."
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).]
Previous Topic
Index
