Slashdot Mirror


Building Cheap 100 Inch TVs

Nastar writes "If you visit eBay and such places there are guys selling 'kits' so that you can easily build your own 100 inch projection screen. There are websites such as 100InchTV selling the instructions for around $10 a pop. They say "this is the only product of this kind on the web" and "it is now possible to convert any type of television or computer monitor into a 100 inch video system that's truly amazing!". I don't like the idea of these people selling this information, especially when you can get it free from the good people at BSTV BSTV. Ihaven't built mine yet, but the reports of quality differ from so-so to fantastic! I suppose it depends on perfecting the technique involved. "

6 of 364 comments (clear)

  1. Stewpid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't believe this is on Slashdot... so disappointing.

    This is as stupid as blowing up a 150x150 pixel image to 1600x1200 in photoshop and expecting a good result.

    You'll end up with a dark, low contrast, blurry mess, but go for it.

  2. Re:what does this mean? by Salgak1 · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Yes, but the "Big Woody" projector unit isn't the chrome-shiny-genuine-woodtoned-plastic that all the sheeple out there seem to think is required for entertaiment electronics. . .



    Imagine the consumer response. . .


    But it's. . .PLYWOOD. . . .and where do we take it for service ???

  3. Re:what does this mean? by silicon_synapse · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I would imagine that the resulting quality would depend partly on the quality of parts you use. A 3.5" portable tv certainly won't project a 100" image of the quality a 32" tv would. You still get what you pay for. But I wouldn't be too concerned with the average joe tearing apart tvs (or putting them back together) just yet. Speaking of which, don't tvs contain very large capacitors that hold deadly amounts of power for a long time? Whatch those fingers.

  4. What's so wrong with selling information ? by tmark · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I don't like the idea of these people selling this information, especially when you can get it free


    How is this any different than (say) O'Reilly selling books on Perl/Oracle/Linux, when people can get all that information for free on the web as well ? Someone has gone to the trouble of packaging the information, and sending it to people who may not even have web access, or may want printed instructions, so I say all the more power to them.
  5. Re:...empirical data says no by Spy+Hunter · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Scanning the spot across a large surface wouldn't make the large surface appear to all be as brightly lit as the spot - it would make the whole large surface appear to be dimly lit. For retention to work the image must form on your eye first, but if the image is only in one position for a fraction of a second, it won't get formed in the first place.

    Why do TVs work then, you ask? Well, the phosphors on your TV are individually much much brighter than an LED shined on a surface from some distance away. Also, the phosphors continue to glow for some time after the electron beam has already passed.

    --
    main(c,r){for(r=32;r;) printf(++c>31?c=!r--,"\n":c<r?" ":~c&r?" `":" #");}
  6. Re:Forget lenses, what about scanning LED projecto by smoyer · · Score: 2, Insightful
    I have been involved in the CATV broadcast business (as an engineer) for 10 years and believe that I can provide some information that will help your proposed development.



    A TV scans across (the horizontal refresh rate) the picture tube at 15.7 KHz. The mirror would have to match this rate to reproduce a picture from a convention broadcast facility, so it would have to vibrate across the chosen field of view 15,700 times per second. I don't know the physics involved behind making a mirror move that fast, but it sure would sound awful, since its vibration would cause compression waves in the air at a very high pitch.



    The TV scans from the top of the screen to the bottom (the vertical trace and retrace) 60 times per second. The mirror would therefore also have to deflect up and down 60 times a second. In my opinion, that makes the mirror movement pretty complicated.



    Don't despair, all is not lost! I remember seeing an early head mounted display that used a column of pixels and a mirror that vibrated left and right 60 times per second. I think that a pretty good image could be created by making a row of 640 clusters of LEDs (each cluster being 3 LEDs - a red, green and blue) and scanning the mirror up and down 30 times per second (Only 30 instead of 60 because you can paint both the odd and even frames at the same time). There would be some electronics involved, since the horizontal picture image must be captured and store in the LEDs. This also has the advantage of providing way more light than 3 LEDs, so you'd have a brighter image.



    Good luck