Slashdot Mirror

thats like saying that everything in reality is an led screen because it is reflecting light into your eyes... the thing is, with this technology, they could send whatever light they want to send to your retina, it doesnt have to be a screen... it doesnt even have to be rectangular. they could even put a camera on it and send a modified real world image to your eyes for AR games.

I think we're talking cross-purposes. LED displays have the illumination behind it and works by gating transmission (not reflecting). The DLP chip, on the other hand, is a small screen that works by reflection. Here is how: http://www.dlp.com/technology/how-dlp-works/ It is, by every definition of the word, a screen. The main difference between the chip and an LCD display is that the DLP chip needs to be projected onto a surface in order to be useful. Otherwise, it meets the definition of a screen. I don't know what you mean by it not having to be rectangular. I'm not pulling this stuff out my ass, I've integrated DLP chips into a microscope optical train and I know how they work.

So is this a new technology or is this the same as the LPD screens you can buy today?

Perhaps you meant DLP? Not the same as LPD but agreed, it will be confusing.

http://www.dlp.com/hdtv/3-d_dlp_hdtv.aspx

I hope this isn't another proprietary thing where you have to have all Sony equipment.

DLP has had 3d for a long time. I think my TV has it. This is an interesting trick. Other than that, no one cares.

This one http://www.dlp.com/regional/dlp_discovery/pico.aspx is targeted at the BeagleBoard http://beagleboard.org/

The PiSight HMD promises 187 degrees horizontal and 84 degrees vertical FOV by tiling DLP chips. I have yet to see it myself, but the units start somewhere around $20K and go up depending on how much FOV you want). 1900x1200 per eye (kind of low, but higher than anything out there).

The problem to solve with HMDs is not just field of view or resolution--you also need to solve the convergence and accommodation problems.

I envision a future HMD unit integrating eye tracking and auto focus which exploits the way the human eye really sees (few degrees at a time, in extremely high resolution) instead of trying to render a very high resolution image at interactive frame rates. I imagine the fact that this has not been built is due to the catch-22 involving low demand and high cost [when only the military can afford your hardware and is willing to pay for it, there is absolutely NO incentive to mass produce it]

In the meantime, the state of the art in VR is still in systems like the CAVE. I think the Iowa State VRAC CAVE has something amazing like 16 Mpixel resolution...

I am waiting for one of the game companies to start exploiting this. In the meantime, get yourself a pair of NuVision Cinema LCD shutter glasses (around $100), a $500 emitter, and a DLP 3DTV device for under $3000 if you are serious about home-based VR. If you can drive the 3DTV device (NVidia is releasing drivers for it ... there is also hardware available from RealD), the quality is stunning. (You're on your own with head tracking...but there are cheap solutions out there such as the WiiMote based hacks...I've only used the more expensive solutions).

In case someone doesn't know about ILED tv's:

http://www.dlp.com/hdtv/led_hdtvs.aspx

This is new? Many DLP TVs support this even though not many probably care (I have one and I don't).

It took over 20 years to come out with what looks like the same technology as the Sega Master System's 3D Glasses?

I also think I saw Captain EO with the same glasses back when Michael Jackson was loved by most.

HDTV will soon be replaced with SHDTV and other such nonsense.

Don't forget 3DTV

I'm hoping this comes out at home. For those of us with two projectors, appropriate polarizing filters, a special screen, and a few sets of glasses I have to say there isn't enough content.

3D displays are moving forward very rapidly, for example 3D DLPs for LCD shutter glasses and 3D LCD displays that use cross-polarized glasses or shutter glasses.

Point well taken. However, DLP mirrors oscillated at frequencies much higher than the frame rate in order to produce gradation in the colors. If they only oscillated at the frame rate, you would only get black or white for each frame. From here...

The bit-streamed image code entering the semiconductor directs each mirror to switch on and off up to several thousand times per second. When a mirror is switched on more frequently than off, it reflects a light gray pixel; a mirror that's switched off more frequently reflects a darker gray pixel.

Not a criticism of what you're saying, just an add-on:

In addition to different possibilities in resolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema#Digital_projection ), there's also the fact that for DLP-based system, individual, dedicated RGB projectors are used ( http://www.dlp.com/cinema/what.aspx ). This results in a superior viewing experience, not just because of the RGB breakout, but because the entire color system is superior. An abridged explanation is here - http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/digital-cinema5.htm - if you're interested in some of the projection mechanics.

LEDs are going to replace the bulbs and color wheels, greatly increasing light source longetivity and also eliminating rainbow effect. This may take awhile to trickle down from the high end devices. On the other hand, since the mfgrs won't want to lose customers over the bulb issue, they will have incentive to make the change ASAP.

http://www.dlp.com/home_entertainment/led_hdtvs.as p

I've owned a DLP projector for 4 years now, and I've recommended Samsung and Mitsubishi DLP rear-projection televisions when asked. Some of my motivations: Plasma is subject to burn-in -- LG incorporates a 'dot-crawl' feature in their plasma displays that moves the image over one pixel, then up, then left, etc, to help mitigate this. If your panel suffers burn-in, you're out the cost of replacing the major component in your television/monitor. With DLP/LCD, you're only ongoing cost is replacement lamps, and they last quite a while. /. also reported that Samsung is close to releasing a DLP display driven by an LED light source. When choosing between LCD and DLP, one thing I might recommend reading about is how well the LCD panel retains its color purity over time. Granted, I saw this on the TI DLP site, but they demonstrated degradation in color purity over time of the LCD panel vs. DLP. There's more information at http://dlp.com/dlp_technology/dlp_technology_white _papers.asp (FWIW, I am an interested consumer. I do not work for TI, nor for any manufacturer of consumer/professional electronic equipment)

The movie would have been better if it was made in DLP. http://www.dlp.com/ film is so... ...old.

If only there were more DLP theatres in Australia
=(

Try seeing it in DLP format! I saw it today in a crappy AMC theatre, but it was DLP format so it was decent. Audio setup sucked though. I will see the movie again in a better theater.

Also, George Lucas pushed on technologies (THX, DLP, ILM, etc.). Also, he lets fans make their own movies (not for profit obviously; he even watches them to pick the best ones), stories, etc. for contests.

Perhaps this is news for the UK, but I recall seeing Star Wars: Attack of the clones more than two years ago, in a South Western Ontario theatre (Galaxy cinema at Conestoga Mall for the locals) that has DLP digital technology.

I am not sure how the movie was delivered to the movie, but I vividly remember that I was close to the screen (crowded theatre), and seeing the pixels on some scenes, like on a low res monitor. Another guy told me that he too saw the pixels.

Perhaps for the UK, it makes sense to truck the movie on hard disk, since distances are not that great. For US and Canada, this may not be practical.

DLPs just reflect the image, you still need a light source, optics, and a screen to project it on. If you want a color image you also need to cycle the light(RGB).

Getting all that into a laptop will be very hard, and I would think it would probably be easy to mess up. These laptops need to be very resiliant, I think they are probably just going to have to spring for some LCD panels and work that extra cost in somewhere, maybe by getting rid of the battery. LCD panels are supposed to start falling in price soon.

Has anyone seen a laptop with a rear projection screen before?

Did anyone feel like playing City of Heroes from this movie?

I posted my brief review and comments on my AQFL Web Site.

And guys, see it on DLP format if you can!

JVC has an LCOS technology, which is not cheap because it uses 3 monochrome chips with separate color light sources, but is supposed to produce very nice pictures. Projectors MSRP $29.9K described here Television MSRP $4.5 -- 6K here.

IIRC, Intel was trying for a single chip solution. TI's DLP chip is a solo and the television mfgs' use a rotating color wheel.

I am really kind of amazed that Intel is throwing in the towel on this one. The eventual winner in this category stands to make a lot of money. Yes, TV is a low margin business, but the display chip will be a proprietary high margin part. The FCC has said that it wants the whole country to go HD and quickly.

Rear projection based on a chip seems to be the eventual winner. Plasma's are nice, but they are inherently more expensive (bigger fab area) and burn out more quickly. Transmisson LCD same fab issue. The only thing that keeps me from declaring TI the winner is that they have not yet produced commercial 1920 X 1080 systems, which will be the highest level HDTV defined by the FCC, at least for a while.

Being replaced by?? DLP has been around for quite a while. They just recently have been able to bring down the cost for it, so now it's more affordable.

Here is a bit of the history of DLP technology.

Depending on the technology (small mirrors or liquid crystal), the silicon switches pixels on or off when the color is aimed at it. Intensity of the color is handled by cycling the pixel on or off (only possible at semiconductor speeds). Light is reflected from the small mirror or substrate underneath the liquid crystal pixel and shines on the screen. The combination of the RGB colors together at high speed creates the image.

To add 1-3 colors to the color wheel and add support for that color to the silicon should not be too much of a technology hurdle. All you need is a faster color wheel and faster switching silicon to handle the additional colors without slowing the refresh rate.

Also, each of the three colors commonly used (rgb) are artificially dark, with each one blocking about 2/3 of the light (since the only let that one color through). So if you think about it, your "white" background is really not as bright as it could be. Some DLP projectors I think use red, green, blue, and white to get some of this contrast back. But I think these guys have a more interesting idea. Your cyan pixel, letting through both blue and green light, would be brighter than either your plain blue or plain green or blue&green next to each other.

Oh, you can go DLP and get a tri-chip system for your living room but, as the guy says, "It'll cost ya!"

But yeah, I know what you mean about the picture looking "funny" -- I wonder if some people just have a higher level of visual acuity than the people who design these things (I know I don't make my living staring into bright lights, so maybe my retinas aren't as crispy...) I mean, I can't tell the difference between a $30 boom box and a $300 stereo, but I almost can't stand to watch a show on the Spike channel because their picture looks like it's been compressed and decompressed a couple of times.

Here's a link to one product (probably this manufacturer's most "affordable" 3-chip projector; the link at the Texas Instruments site pointing there ranked this one for "high-end home theaters" -- the "mid-range" systems below this category were mentioned at "price points as low as $20K-$30K", so I imagine this one is, er, a bit pricey...)

I got on Texas Instruments' DLP mailing list as soon as I heard about it (and I already have the wall picked out in my living room, though I don't think I'll ever ever be able to afford one of the really nice projectors unless I save Brooke Shields from drowning or something...) and have always been fascinated with the whole MEMS thing anyway.
BTW, here's a link to TI's DLP overview, for those who aren't interested in Googling for it.

The actual imaging component of a projector isn't that big. Look at the TI DLP chip. Their projectors are already down to 2.2 pounds.

Color is a problem. Currently, you need either a color wheel for field-sequential color or three imaging chips, which looks better. This new "holographic" display has the same problem. Note that their demo image is greyscale.

What's really needed are powerful LED arrays as the light source. If you could change the light source color at a few KHz, which LEDs can easily do, a one-chip DLP projector without a color wheel would work. With an LED light source, you could do some other obvious power-saving tricks, too. You need no more light output than the brightest pixel in that color in that frame. With sectional lighting, maybe less.

LEDs with enough light output for this are not far off. LEDs have taken over automotive taillights, and white LED automotive headlamps are expected in 2006. Toyota showed a car with LED headlamps in 2003.

That direction is more likely to result in smaller projectors than this "holographic" thing.

You're not getting the point. Single chip DLP does not mix RGB channels. It just displays them separately in such quick succession that it appears to mix them to the human eye. That's why some people can see a rainbow effect when scanning their eyes quickly across a DLP projected picture. I don't know where you got any of that information because none of it is specifically in the article.

My point is that the screen doesn't really need to be calibrated that well for use with a single chip DLP projector. It just needs to reflect the RGB wavelengths well and absorb everything else. It does not need to be tuned to a specific frequency of white light.

In single ship DLP there are no other wavelengths hitting the screen than those specific red green and blue wavelengths. For single chip DLP those are the ONLY wavelengths you need to reflect.

DLP.com

Quote:
The on and off states of each micromirror are coordinated with these three basic building blocks of color. For example, a mirror responsible for projecting a purple pixel will only reflect red and blue light to the projection surface; our eyes then blend these rapidly alternating flashes to see the intended hue in a projected image.

Good point..but I believe what his thinking was clear but his writing was not.

Are you sure about that? Most DLP theaters I've heard of use a three-panel 1280x1024 DLP projector with an anamorphic lens.

2048x1080 is what I read at DLP.com (see this and here at the bottom, and I've seen it other places) for the new theaters (the one I saw is brand new and high end, I'm assuming they have the latest in tech).

CRTs are analog so it's less clear, but only the best front-projection CRT projects can actually resolve 1920x1080. Most commercial HD RPTVs don't come anywhere near that

Could be but I'll have to look into that later (I don't recall hearing much about that at AVS forums or when I was doing my HDTV research). I do know that very very few HDTV cameras can do the full 1920 (but they can do the 1080), but I have not looked into that for at least 6 months so things could have changed.

Good point..but I believe what his thinking was clear but his writing was not.

Are you sure about that? Most DLP theaters I've heard of use a three-panel 1280x1024 DLP projector with an anamorphic lens.

2048x1080 is what I read at DLP.com (see this and here at the bottom, and I've seen it other places) for the new theaters (the one I saw is brand new and high end, I'm assuming they have the latest in tech).

CRTs are analog so it's less clear, but only the best front-projection CRT projects can actually resolve 1920x1080. Most commercial HD RPTVs don't come anywhere near that

Could be but I'll have to look into that later (I don't recall hearing much about that at AVS forums or when I was doing my HDTV research). I do know that very very few HDTV cameras can do the full 1920 (but they can do the 1080), but I have not looked into that for at least 6 months so things could have changed.

yeah, it does imply that things are slipping through the cracks, that's why they are spending money on this, at least that's the obvious reason on the face of this. Imtech appears to have lots of Homeland Security contracts as well as a GSA contract so I think there is probably a bigger story behind all this, but in a nutshell you are correct sir. Incidentally it looks like Imtech is using some pretty nifty DLP displays from Mitsubishi, the DLP part is from TI: DLP.com

The article says it would use solar reflectors mounted on satellites to create the messages. In other words, each reflector could be considered a pixel in the display. I suppose it could work sort of like a giant DLP monitor. Now we just need a giant color wheel that could double as a space station.

You mean like TI's very popular DLP chips?

Http://www.dlp.com

IMAX vs dlp!

Did the last matrix come out in dlp format?

I would imagine that this digital format would be better than our typical theaters... but what about IMAX?

I am almost certain that the last two starwars movies came out on IMAX and dlp... so maybe somebody could compare those for us.

Davak

The research I've been doing is in the $4000 range and I've decided on DLP.

There is no "burn-in" and the consoles are significantly thinner (not plasma thin, but thinner than traditional rear projection units.) The picture is pretty awesome at all angles and the technology is really cool.

Info on DLP concept.

A vendor (Pricey, but informative.)

Rumors are around that sub-$1000 DLP systems will be out by the end of the year.

dlp

Does anyone have a page that lists the technical details of how DLP works? The picture of the slide wasn't very technically detailed. I'd like to see how these work.

There's a fair amount of info on DLP at dlp.com. They have a rather high level "Technical overview", but if you look in the right place, you can also find a small White Paper Library, which has a number of papers that are fairly technically detailed but (IMO) still quite understandable.

Does anyone have a page that lists the technical details of how DLP works? The picture of the slide wasn't very technically detailed. I'd like to see how these work.

There's a fair amount of info on DLP at dlp.com. They have a rather high level "Technical overview", but if you look in the right place, you can also find a small White Paper Library, which has a number of papers that are fairly technically detailed but (IMO) still quite understandable.

Does anyone have a page that lists the technical details of how DLP works? The picture of the slide wasn't very technically detailed. I'd like to see how these work.

There's a fair amount of info on DLP at dlp.com. They have a rather high level "Technical overview", but if you look in the right place, you can also find a small White Paper Library, which has a number of papers that are fairly technically detailed but (IMO) still quite understandable.

Like the subject says, I don't want film, I want digital. Having seen several films (Akira (twice digital, once on film), Monster's Inc. (1+1), SW: TPM (1+1), etc.) on DLP and on film, I can say that the film going experience is a full order of magnitude better on DLP. The blacks are black. The edges are sharper, the film "jitter" is gone and the whole image simply kicks ass. Yes, I know that film is theoretically better. But the print you see in the theatre is 4 generations old if you're lucky and 6 or 7 if you're not. So forget nausea inducing IMAX, bring it in DLP and I'll go to see it 5 times.

There is a DLP theater a block from my house. What format are these theaters using now? They look simply awesome.

You Have to think in the future here. At the end of 2006, there just might be some really cool cheap projectors out there. Who knows? I think there will be. Maybe you don't have to keep your room "dark like that" (dark like what?)- isn't that just a question of setting the gamma/brightness of your future projector? A big wall? Can't you just scale the image to fit the place where your old (HD)TV or monitor once resided? And/Or get a roll down thingy to cast the image on? Lots of cool technology are on the way for your future home theater anyways: OLEDS, DLP. Hmmm lots... ok I could mention 2 :)

DLP = Digital light processing. A technology invented, or at least commercialized, by Texas Instruments, I believe. See www.dlp.com or something.

Oh, and I really don't think the PS2 uses a 512-pixel wide resolution. Some games might, but it's certainly not the only resolution handled by the PS2, and I'd actually be surprised if it's the default, or even the most common.

I didn't see anything about Digital Light Projection. Will IMAX have this too or is it not possible? :)

Well said. But there are other advantages coming in the future. For example, on can conceivably do away with the screen altogether. One could have private booths set up with digital viewing goggles. 3-D anyone?

Heck, who needs the theater at all? Digital movies can be piped to homes, restaurants, etc..., without any loss in quality. Just a thought. And the resolution argument against DP is just stalling tactics. As DP technology improves, its resolution will eventually surpass that of film. Besides there is nothing like a little competition to spur things in the right direction. There are currently two competing DLP technologies that I know of:

Silicon Light

Digital Light Projection

In my opinion, Silicon light has an advantage because their projector is cheaper and potentially better. Check both of them out.

A quote from Ebert's article "Projections on future of digital":

"A bombshell research report just released by Credit Suisse/First Boston supports Maxivision as preferable to digital projection, which is "not ready for prime time." The most unexpected finding of the report is that digital projection would not be cheaper than the current system of distributing prints, but, because of the financing costs, would be more expensive. Other bullet points: Maxivision has dramatically better picture quality; its cost is around $10,000 a booth, as opposed to $100,000 to $150,000 for digital; it is backward compatible and can project all films ever made; and the current Texas Instruments digital standard uses an inferior standard. The report praises the Kodak digital standard as superior, but criticizes Kodak for not supporting Maxivision--which, because it uses film, dovetails with Kodak's dominance of the celluloid market. Since the much-heralded digital rollout of "Star Wars Episode II" was a non-event, it's unlikely that exhibitors are prepared to make an enormous investment in digital projectors. If they want something new, affordable and dramatically better, Maxivision is the obvious choice."

The report itself may be found here (it's a PDF).

Here's another quote from an earlier Answer Man article:

"Daniel Switkin of Palo Alto, Calif., writes: 'I saw AOTC in digital. Although the image was completely flicker- and defect-free, and the sound was perfect, the resolution was dreadful. Pixels were clearly visible, and everything from subtitles to small details were much worse than film. Some digging on www.dlp.com reveals that the current digital projectors use a pathetic 1280x1024 resolution--the same as most 17 inch desktop LCD monitors! This is despite the fact that the Sony camera used to shoot the movie digitally operates at 1920x1080 resolution. How can we the audience tell the industry that these five-year-old digital projectors they're now just installing aren't good enough?'"

1280x1024!!!?? What the heck?

Ebert makes a very good case against digital projection, at least as it exists today. He posits convincingly that the fascination with converting the industry to a digital projection format is fueled by uninformed executives who have been trained to salivate at the word 'digital.' The Answer Man column archive is here.

www.dlp.com

Take one of these D-VHS VCR's, add a MEMS display, such as a TI DLP projector,
and top it off with a kick ass DD5.1 / DTS surround sound system, and you're getting dangerously close to the digital theaters that George Lucas was pushing for Episode 2.

Episode 2 was recorded in 1080/24p, HD resolution.

This equipment gets you pretty darn close to a digital theater in the comfort of your own home.

Here is the link to TI's Tech Page on DLP technology

The biggest array that advertise on the product page is 1280x1024 (that is item #1.1SXGA SDR)
Here are the spec:
Diagonal:
1.1"
Array:1280x1024
Mirror:17um
Tilt:10 deg.

---
You do have a choice besides the "Republicrats and Demicans." Join the LP and work for smaller government and less taxes.