3M Launches First Pocket Projector

An anonymous reader writes "Popsci.com has a writeup on 3M's new pocket projector, the 3M MPro 110, set to launch on September 30. 'In a dark room, it could project a big enough image to be the ultimate cheap-o home theater. The projector will sell for a mere $359. It doesn't have a speaker, so you'll have to get that separately. But really, how good could a microscopic speaker jammed into this thing sound, anyway?'"

Comments

They also have...

[mbstone]

a lollipop with a Batman projector built-in, in case one has the need to summon the Caped Crusader. I saw it at 7-11.

Re:They also have...

[Anonymous Coward]

Am I the only person to have read that as "Pocket Protector"?

Re:They also have...

[freakdiablo]

All we need now is a Hotwheels Batmobile and we are ready to roll.

Re:They also have...

[Ihmhi]

I read it as "rocket projector", and I thought it was amazingly awesome. Like, a projector that flies across the room, shows a 1 second video, and then kills the C.F.O.

Re:They also have...

[Debug0x2a]

Nope, I sure did too. Come to think of it I could probably use a pocket protector...

Re:They also have...

[supernova_hq]

Now there's a way to up your nerd cred!

Re:They also have...

[Bearhouse]

Wish I had mod points, you'd get 'em all.

Re:They also have...

[Locklin]

I read it as "Pocket Protector." I thought, wow, this really is "news for nerds."

Re:They also have...

[Sfing_ter]

yes, i also saw it as "Pocket Protector", i feel as though i have judged you all wrongly. But, i would like to see 3m's Pocket Protector, how much does it cost?

Re:They also have...

[LeapingQuince]

Nope. My thought was 3M; tape, post-its, staplers, why not pocket protectors? But it got more confusing when I read the 'First' part of the headline - haven't they been around for a long time and shouldn't /. readers know that?

Re:They also have...

[bill_kress]

First line in TFA:
"That's projector, not protector. But geeks will rejoice nonetheless."

only 640x480

[h4rr4r]

Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.

Re:only 640x480

[Anonymous Coward]

And only 11 inches across

Re:only 640x480

[Anonymous Coward]

That's why they called it a Pocket Projector rather than a Home Theater Projector.

Re:only 640x480

[nirvash]

but thats the resolution of a dvd, right?

Re:only 640x480

[h4rr4r]

Nope. 720 Ã-- 480 for NTSC and 720 Ã-- 576 for PAL.

Re:only 640x480

[Jeff DeMaagd]

It's a step. Projectors for decent home theater are priced pretty nicely now. I think a good 720p projector can be had for about $1000 these days.

Re:only 640x480

[Jeff DeMaagd]

And only 11 inches across

That's under bright lights. They said it was a lot larger with the lights turned down, but they didn't say how big of a picture it was.

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

Isn't that for widescreen? Don't the 720 pixels get squished down to 640 for 4:3?

Re:only 640x480

[h4rr4r]

What is recorded 4:3?
Even if you have an old tv, get the theater version, "fullscreen" versions cut out a lot.

Re:only 640x480

[zakezuke]

Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.

As others have pointed out, it's a pocket projector, not a HT projector. Also DVD resolution is only about 720 x 480 dropping down to 352 x 480 at LP. While not perfect, nothing to sneeze at considering the price. It would be ideal to catch a vid while camping.

Re:only 640x480

[Mistlefoot]

For sure. Imagine in a few years a laptop the size of a comfy keyboard that projects onto the back of your desk or any convenient wall...... Heck, imagine that right now with a 7" screen 'eee'..... For most things I view a screen for high def isn't needed at all. A laptop and a "monitor" in my backpack though...... Cool

Re:only 640x480

[Anonymous Coward]

No.

720 x 576 is 4:3 PAL where the pixel aspect ratio is 1.06

16:9 PAL is 720 x 576 where the pixel aspect ratio is 1.42

Re:only 640x480

[entrigant]

um, no. There is no resolution difference between widescreen and fullscreen. A bit is set somewhere that indicates "this is 16:9", and that is all. That is why it is called anamorphic widescreen.

Did you just assume what you said, or is this a case of "I read it so it must be true?"

Re:only 640x480

[sortius_nod]

I think I'll stay with my Epson projector.

While it's neat that this stuff is small, it's really not anything close to what's required for true home theatre projection. Even my old Benq projector didn't do so well at a native res of 800x600.

I really don't see the need to wank on about how this is a cheap alternative to home theatre projection. You'd be better off with a CRT TV over this device.

Re:only 640x480

[Plaid Phantom]

I'm imagining this projector combined with a Bluetooth Laser Keyboard. With a mini computer made out of Gumstix or something.

Re:only 640x480

[robotoperasinger]

I only use my home theater for playing 90s FMV point and click games, so it works well for me.

Re:only 640x480

[gfody]

Not all DVDs are anamorphic

Re:only 640x480

[Anonymous Coward]

for ntsc the pixels are narrow - not square - so 720x480 is still 4:3 - since the pixels are about 10% less wide than tall. etc etc see this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixel_aspect_ratio

Re:only 640x480

[entrigant]

If they're not anamorphic then the black bars are encoded into the video. The resolution is still unchanged. It's just a shame the only options are 16:9 and 4:3. 2.35:1 content also wastes resolution with black bars encoded into the video even if anamorphic, but the authors of 2.35:1 content have little choice.

Re:only 640x480

[aliquis]

11" is a much bigger factor.

Anyway at washed out at 11" I don't see why anyone would get this, if it's for a toy it must be made much cheaper. You can get an LCD with much better picture obviously for less (if you get 17" ... I don't know where to get 12" or so and they may cost more ;/)

Anyway, the point was that no one can complain that an LCD is inconvenient anyway because how fucking convenient is it to get a 11" single tone and color area and something to put your projector on? Yes that's right! Not very! :D

The eeePC probably outperforms this and can hold it's own movies as well! Not to mention decode them! ;D

Re:only 640x480

[aliquis]

I'd much rather take a high definition small sharp screen than a shitty definition huge piece of shit though ;D, guess we are different.

Size isn't all that important, you just have to come closer, that's what I would tell her, if I had a girlfriend that is. (Knowing I'm going towards the off topic moderation I guess I would pick girlfriend as monitors, rather high def and small than low def and huge :D)

Re:only 640x480

[aliquis]

It's probably some weird "knowledge" coming from the PC kids have used 640x480 on their TV-out on the graphics card and that worked!

Re:only 640x480

[master5o1]

So from lamp-to-screen it's 11 inches? oh god oh god. I sure was hoping it would be as long as their name 3M -etres.

Re:only 640x480

[amRadioHed]

Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.

Re:only 640x480

[lilo_booter]

This is true for NTSC 4:3 standard definition (sort of...). Basically, NTSC is 720x480 and a sample aspect ratio of 10:11 - ie: each pixel is rectangular with a width/height ratio of 10 to 11.

Thus, to get the display width, 720 * 10 / 11 = 654. The additional 14 pixels is called overscan and is not shown on a standard TV.

PAL is 720x576 @ 59:54 which gives a display width of 786 and 768 of those are shown on a TV (with the remaining pixels being overscan).

There are actually rounding errors in those calcs as the sample aspect ratio is an approximation but it's only out by a couple of pixels :-).

16:9 widescreen sar's for PAL and NTSC are 118:81 and 40:33 respectively.

Re:only 640x480

[zakezuke]

Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.

That may be your ideal, however that doesn't make it the ideal.

Camping serves many purposes, top among which is it's the cheapest form of lodging even if in the states there are heavy restrictions on doing it.

Another purpose it serves is recreation. There are a ton of natural wonders that either don't have services near by, or are just outside the reach of civilization. This may include lakes, hot springs, beaches, mountains, valleys, and certainly many others. However, this doesn't exclude camping for it's own purpose.

Presuming recreation, whose to say that one can't for example catch a fun filled day of natural fun? The funny thing about natural fun is it gets dark at night, which limits your options for late night entertainment.

The first time I went camping was somewhere where you could park your car and pitch a tent, away from civilization. I bought a tape player. The batteries died after the first day, but I enjoyed "roughing it" with music. Other times I bought along my laptop, not so much because I wanted to use it but it made an ultra handy backup light.

Re:only 640x480

[Bodrius]

Using this for home theater projection would be utterly idiotic. There is no shortage and cheap projectors that already do a better job for a permanent or semi-permanent instalation.

Although the price is surprisingly cheap, I doubt the video quality will be any surprise for that price. That's just not what these kinds of products are about.

This is about presentation hardware for mobile professionals - salesmen, marketing, that kind of thing. Being able to make a last-minute presentation/sales-pitch when you don't have the luxury of real A/V equipment at the location... without having to lug a 10-pound lamp around.

Re:only 640x480

[evilviper]

Don't the 720 pixels get squished down to 640 for 4:3?

No.

IF the video has to be scaled to compensate for square pixels (like many, but not all, computer monitors) then you always only scale UP to avoid such loss of information.

So for 4:3, you get 720x540 NTSC or 768x576 PAL. For 16:9 you get 854x480 NTSC or 1024x576 PAL.

Re:only 640x480

[lilo_booter]

Interesting - I would have thought it was more common to scale horizontally (hence scaling down in the 720x480 10:11 case). But your figures seem to be missing the overscan, so unless you're cropping that away somewhere else, you're going to be showing too much (and you'll be slightly squished horizontally as a result...).

Re:only 640x480

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.

You also need a blender.
For the margaritas, of course.
Then it doesn't matter if you did bring anything else, because after enough margaritas you won't remember about the other gadgets.

Re:only 640x480

[srussia]

Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.

You also need a blender.
For the margaritas, of course.
Then it doesn't matter if you did bring anything else, because after enough margaritas you won't remember about the other gadgets.

Actually, the proper alcoholic accoutrement for a tent is a still (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M*A*S*H).

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

I understand, but what device has non-square pixels? As a result, as a practical matter, pixels get "squished".

In NTSC-land, 720x480 would have to squish down to 640x480 to give 4:3.

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

No need for the dripping sarcasm... do you really have a display device that has non-square pixels? If you don't, then you are watching 640x480 or thereabouts when you watch DVD 4:3.

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

Cool, that makes a lot more sense. So a 640x480 device is certainly capable of handling "DVD Quality" then, as only about 12% of the horizontal resolution is tossed out - same thing that would happen on a computer unless you stretched the vertical pixels.

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

I would think it was preferable to lose some info rather than pretend you have more than you do, thus ripping DVD video to 640x480 being far more common than ripping DVD video to 720x540.

And, in fact, I just opened Apple's built-in DVD player with a 4:3 movie, and it uses 640x480, so don't take it up with me - take it up with Apple :)

Re:only 640x480

[evilviper]

I would think it was preferable to lose some info rather than pretend you have more than you do,

Actually, upscaling won't cost you much in bits with lossy compression. Even if you "pretend" to have a higher resolution, the codec will still very effectively omit redundant info.

thus ripping DVD video to 640x480 being far more common than ripping DVD video to 720x540.

540 is also not a multiple of 16, so encoding using that resolution is a bad idea all-around.

Downscaling the width will save you some bits, but downscaling the height will as well. And with any decent container, you can preserve aspect ratio info, and is common with eg. MP4, MKV, MPG, etc..

As for "common"? I certainly haven't seen a rash of 640x480 videos floating around. You're more likely to see video widths downscaled to the 500s (and height adjusted accordingly) rather than 640...

And, in fact, I just opened Apple's built-in DVD player with a 4:3 movie, and it uses 640x480,

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Maybe it defaults to a display size of "640x480", but I'm quite sure they would still preserve (decode and display) the full resolution. So, if you've got the DVD displayed full-screen, it will display all 720 columns, even if it defaults to 640 in a window.

Re:only 640x480

[evilviper]

But your figures seem to be missing the overscan, so unless you're cropping that away somewhere else, you're going to be showing too much (and you'll be slightly squished horizontally as a result...).

Overscan happens in BOTH the horizontal and vertical direction, and to almost the same degree, so nothing gets squished (nominal), and there's little point in including it in (casual approximations of) aspect ratio calculations.

Re:only 640x480

[RadioactiveRussian]

As long as you can plug in your PDA/DigiCam and shoot it on the bathroom stall door, who cares. It does what it needs to do so you can, uh, do what you need to do...

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

I certainly haven't seen a rash of 640x480 videos floating around.

It's extremely common for 4:3 TV shows, though I think you are right that 544x408 seems to be more common, being the next 4:3 ratio that is divisible by 16.

I'm not sure what you mean by that. Maybe it defaults to a display size of "640x480", but I'm quite sure they would still preserve (decode and display) the full resolution.

Yeah, I mean that Apple's engineers decided that on a computer the "native" resolution of a 4:3 DVD is 640x480... that's the default size that they use for display. They certainly aren't Gods, and VLC uses 720x540. On the other hand, MPlayer seems to agree with Apple and runs 640x480.

But my point wasn't to debate the finer nuances of computer video... just to point out that 640x480 is in fact good enough to call "DVD Quality" - at least for 4:3 titles. At the WORST (assuming no overscan to throw away) you are losing 12% of the horizontal information and none of the vertical information. Even the best analog TV sets are in the same ballpark.

Re:only 640x480

[NeilTheStupidHead]

But perfect for Starcraft!

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

TV shows, older movies. I tend to prefer letterbox, but spent my whole life with pan-and-scan and didn't exactly suffer :)

Anyway, a 640x480 device is certainly no worse than a 4:3 TV set... same limitations, but this one fits in your pocket!

Re:only 640x480

[lilo_booter]

Unsure - agreed that overscan is in both directions, but the horizontal is more of an issue when talking about computer display.

Taking the PAL 720x576 4:3 case, the height * 4 / 3 = 768 is the horizontal square pixel size. But the sar is 59:54 which gives us 720 * 59 / 54 = approx 786 (rounding down) which means you have 8 [square] pixels on left/right which should not be shown in the 768x576 display, hence the horizontal squish I was talking about (it's actually still ever so subtly wrong, but the remainder is just due to the sar being inaccurate). The same is true of all PAL 118:81, NTSC 10:11 and 40:33 - there's always a little surplus when you compare height * ar and width * sar.

Re:only 640x480

[lilo_booter]

Ooops - 9 left/right not 8 :-). Real figure should be 10 anyway :-).

Re:only 640x480

[daedae]

If only you'd spelled it "3M-eters", I might've gotten it the first time.

Still, somebody mod this funny.

Re:only 640x480

[atraintocry]

NTSC is sent as scanlines, not pixels. You could grab as many horizontal pixels as you wanted if you were going to digitize it.

That said, there *is* a maximum horizontal resolution, but it has to do with the carrier wave, not any set number of pixels. Typically the resolution of a particular set is measured in the number of concentric circles that can clearly be shown.

Re:only 640x480

[Anonymous Coward]

If camping, make sure you also ban the gf taking her "toy" as otherwise she'll be sending you yomping off to the shops for new batteries every five minutes. Whilst technically, battery-operated is still "electrical" this point is often lost on desperate gf's of nerds and big cats in Essex.

You have been warned.

P.S., My personal projector is much bigger then this.

Re:only 640x480

[evilviper]

On the other hand, MPlayer seems to agree with Apple and runs 640x480.

That shouldn't be the case (I know MPlayer pretty damn well)... If you're getting a 640x480, there must be some odd option in your config or command-line, or something strange about your specific -vo method. Perhaps the GUI (I assume...) you're using is choosing to do that... for some reason.

But my point wasn't to debate the finer nuances of computer video... just to point out that 640x480 is in fact good enough to call "DVD Quality"

Yes, I agree it's close enough.

With a proper (16:9 anamorphic) lens, it could do equally well on widescreen DVD (at the expense of 4:3 fullscreen being lower res).

Re:only 640x480

[MightyYar]

I understand that things get messy on analog TVs when talking about pixels... I was more referring to how computers (usually with square pixels) handle DVD video. Apple's DVD player and MPlayer both default to a 640x480 size when playing 4:3 DVD video ("squishing" the 720 to 640). VLC goes to 720x540 (stretching the 480 to 540). Anyway, I think it's reasonable to call 640x480 "DVD Quality" unless you are sitting in a standards body meeting :) For 16:9, you'd probably want a little more horizontal resolution before claiming "DVD Quality"... or ideally non-square pixels!

Re:only 640x480

[Anonymous Coward]

Catch a vid while camping?? Really, you need to get out more.

Re:only 640x480

[ceoyoyo]

Cell phone? You're camping where you get cell service!?

Re:only 640x480

[master5o1]

I suppose I should have translated to english then?

First? Not a chance

[damn_registrars]

We've had them for a long, long time.

Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

damn nerds

[gEvil (beta)]

Damn nerds and their goofy pocket projectors...

Almost won the UberGeek award

[R2.0]

Anybody else read that as "3M Pocket Protector"? Because with those specs, that would be AWESOME!

Re:Almost won the UberGeek award

[Technician]

Anybody else read that as "3M Pocket Protector"? Because with those specs, that would be AWESOME!

3M pocket protectors have been with us for many years. To make one, take the sleve from a 3M floppy (5-1/4in) and fold it in half. Fill the front with pens and the back with your calculator and you are all set.

Re:Almost won the UberGeek award

[Anonymous Coward]

I always wondered who invented the pocket protector. So, it was 3M?

I bow in that general direction...

Re:Almost won the UberGeek award

[rrohbeck]

Me too.
Damn. How hard could it be to add space for a few pens?

"3M Launches First Pocket Protector"

[deft]

Thats what i thought it said...seems more applicable here on /. anyways :)

Re:"3M Launches First Pocket Protector"

[oogoliegoogolie]

Me too! I thought it was a historic article and about the first one from the 1930's or whenever.

Re:"3M Launches First Pocket Protector"

[Anonymous Coward]

Same here.

Yay lack of editing in TFA

[Anonymous Coward]

TFA says images were discernible up to 11 INCHES across. I really hope they meant 11 feet, because I'm pretty sure 11 inches wouldn't be very useful.

Re:Yay lack of editing in TFA

[Sebilrazen]

...because I'm pretty sure 11 inches wouldn't be very useful.

That's what she said!!!

Uh, what were we talking about?

Re:Yay lack of editing in TFA

[doctor_nation]

No, for something that small, I'm guessing 11" is correct under bright light. 11 feet is enormous- you can't see most full-size projectors under bright lights if the screen is that big.

But if you dim the lights, it sounds like you can see the image much better, so that you can go bigger.

HR Violation

[nick_davison]

I tried showing one of my female colleagues my pocket projector.

Anyone hiring?

Re:HR Violation

[Amazing Quantum Man]

Is that a projector in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?

Re:HR Violation

[tmosley]

That's the smallest projector I've ever seen.

Re:HR Violation

[Spatial]

Wow, it's the brightest one I've ever seen!

Specs

[lordofthechia]

The article didn't list any specs but a little digging found this:

3M MPRO 110M
640x480 Resolution
LCoS Technology (supposedly similar to DLP)
VGA and composite in
150g weight

Considering how small 1080p DLP chips are, and now that they're using LEDs as lightsources, I was suprised that a DLP model wasn't first to market...

That said, 3M has a smaller model for cell phone use: here .

Re:Specs

[lordofthechia]

Spoke too soon. I knew some friends at TI had mentioned seeing prototypes of compact DLP projectors. Seems they're already marketing them to cell phone companies:
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/9849/10873/hands-on-dlp-mobile-phone-projector.phtml

Soon... very soon we'll have our tricorders!

Re:Specs

[Anonymous Coward]

A hi-res version of that would be real handy in a laptop. I can't count all the times there has been a laptop around but no project or monitor available to share the display with everyone else.

Re:Specs

[lordofthechia]

A hi-res version of that would be real handy in a laptop. I can't count all the times there has been a laptop around but no project or monitor available to share the display with everyone else.

Be careful what you wish for. You may one day be visiting some personal sites while the projector built into your laptop is on and happily displaying to the world the deepest darkest recesses of your mind.....

see:
http://www.asylum.com/2008/09/12/teacher-accidentally-screens-porno-to-classroom/

Re:Specs

[rfunches]

I'm surprised anyone still manufactures LCoS, considering that the market has pretty much imploded the past few years. The major company using LCoS was a low to mid-price HDTV manufacturer that stopped selling them before the company went belly-up (Syntax-Brillian). An LCoS manufacturer, Spatialight, also went belly-up toward the end of 2007. And I know off the top of my head that Phillips hopped off the LCoS bandwagon, and Sony pretty much discontinued all of their SXRD TVs (a proprietary version of LCoS).

Re:Specs

[TheSync]

LCoS Technology (supposedly similar to DLP)/i

LCoS is a liquid crystal on a reflective chip (made of silicon). DLPs are an array of micromirrors.

Smart phone presentations?

[crow]

Something like this would be great when combined with a Windows Mobile version of Powerpoint or an iPhone version of Keynote. One more step towards eliminating the need for laptops. (Next up, docking stations for smart phones.)

Re:First? Not a chance

[Theolojin]

Er, 3M makes rocket fuel? Definitely news for nerds.

Oh, wait. That was pocket projectors. I'm sorry. I was only off by one consonant.

Put it in a laptop?

[AscianBound]

Interesting... it actually seems like it's small enough that you could fit it in a laptop. That way you wouldn't even have to have mess with carrying around two separate objects (and be bothered to set them up). Though of course the question of how licensing would work comes to mind.

It'd be a nice laptop feature to have though, once the technology matures a little bit.

Good for DIY multitouch setups

[sonamchauhan]

Good for DIY multitouch setups
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=multitouch

Re:First? Not a chance

[deepgrey]

I got the second consonant, but by association, I pictured projector in a guy's shirt pocket. Must pretty darn hard to hold that thing still...

Who needs sound?

[inode_buddha]

Who needs sound when you project goatse from your cellphone on a crowded bus?

Re:Who needs sound?

[zakezuke]

Who needs sound when you project goatse from your cellphone on a crowded bus?

Who needs a projector when you can setup a wifi hotpoint with everything redirected to a local cache of goatse.

Re:Who needs sound?

[Brain Damaged Bogan]

true, but I'm sure the folks on the bus would appreciate 2girls1cup a lot more with sound. It's much more tasteful with the audio cranked up.

Re:Who needs sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

that's so twisted I might just do it.

Re:Who needs sound?

[zakezuke]

that's so twisted I might just do it.

Well, I've only done a mirror of Khaaaan.net or whatever that url was that had William Shatner in Star Trek II yelling "Khannnn... Khannnn.... Khannnnn....." at your friendly neighborhood StarFucks.

I never tried Goatse. Khannnn... was frightful enough. A dozen or so laptops over and over again yelling "Khannn...." until they figured out they shouldn't connect to StarFucks.

Re:Who needs sound?

[initialE]

Who needs wifi when you can pull down your pants and spread them?

Re:Who needs sound?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who needs wifi when you can pull down your pants and spread them?

I highly doubt that I could. I certainly wouldn't want to try.

There is only one goatse. Fortunately you don't see copy cats in Starbucks drinking their Caramel Macchiato.

Re:Who needs sound?

[juhaz]

The speakers might be useful for drowning all the screaming.

Re:misread?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look around -- we ALL read it as pocket protector. Some are just too embarrassed to admit it.

Freudian slip?

[jmelchio]

Strangely enough on first reading I thought this article was about a new 'pocket protector' that 3M had developed. Should I seek some help now?

Re:First? Not a chance

[Darkness404]

I thought it was pocket protectors too when I read the headline.

More ways than one to lose your money

[howardtr]

Even if it does perform well in some environments; being no bigger than a pen, I (and likely most of us) would easily misplace this little gem. There goes $360 ...

What's their market for this thing?

[eagl]

I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.

Re:What's their market for this thing?

[zakezuke]

I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.

Well, I can "imagine" LP resolution DVDs, even regular SP dvd with some down sampling. I can really imagine a simple power point presentation being MORE than adequate at 640x480. Not that you don't have a point. WinXP hardly supports 640x480 anymore, in fact it's a bit of a pain if you want to output to a TV.

Re:What's their market for this thing?

[eagl]

My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.

Re:What's their market for this thing?

[zakezuke]

My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.{/quote>

Well, absolutely. If you're looking for a decent presentation you simply can't beat slides for portability and the simple technology required to display them. This would include 35mm slides, while requiring a certain bother and effort to convert letter to slide, certain time and expense, this still is a viable technology. Ektachrome Professional I believe is rated at about 4096x3276, or in paper of about 350dpi or so. When making a copy, expect to lose at least 1/2 that (note, number pulled from arse), but that still about 2048x1638 which isn't too shabby. This presumes a good macro lens and such. When dealing with inkjet, I question whether printable transparencies or a good photo quality paper and slides provide a better result.

Now you or I would likely need at least 800x600, if not higher. I won't argue that. But 640x480 is almost good enough for DVD SP, certainly is good enough for LP DVD. The bulk of a series of slides or transparencies and the relativly simple nature of the equipment is likely to be more bulky than a laptop and a pocket projector. So I will still see it as being useful, if in the spiffy toy class.

Re:What's their market for this thing?

[eagl]

By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.

I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.

Re:What's their market for this thing?

[zakezuke]

By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.

I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.

I was confused on the point of slides. I was unsure if you meant printed out transparencies or slides as in 35mm, where transparencies on an overhead projector are still quite the norm.

I do see a market for such a device. To me, it's a matter of a simple portable DVD player and this projector, or a laptop and this projector. The alternative really is lugging around an LCD screen which to be fair is a tad fragile. Keep in mind that this sort of thing was available in the past in the form of film strips on small projectors or ViewMaster type solutions. You could use it for a small sales presentation, safety film, instructional vid, and quite a few applications where you need to be transportable and don't need really high resolution.

Re:What's their market for this thing?

[pbhj]

Ever given a presentation in an elevator?

It's a niche product, I can think of plenty of niches it fits in nicely.

Re:What's their market for this thing?

[zakezuke]

Ever given a presentation in an elevator?

It's a niche product, I can think of plenty of niches it fits in nicely.

Yes. When I and others went to school, I'm sure you remember those portable film strip readers. They were semi portable, typically used 35mm film, and back projected on a small screen typically 14 inches diagonal or so. I have no clue what they were called, in fact I doubt the teachers knew, but they were ubiquitous, in that tasteful 50s battleship gray leading to wonder whether the paint came from military surplus.

I "imagine" one could do the same thing with 110 film, in fact ViewMaster had a few solutions beyond their hand held viewer.

I see this digital revolution attempting to provide the technology we had some 50 years ago, but easier to produce as one doesn't need to worry about film or film chemistry to do it.

Re:First? Not a chance

[CaptainPatent]

We've had them for a long, long time.

Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

I know! 350 bucks and I STILL have ink on my shirt!

That'll teach me to glance at the subject line.

April Fools to Reality in 6 months

[GrenDel Fuego]

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/01/1342225

Re:April Fools to Reality in 6 months

[Anonymous Coward]

Dood u r fucking stupid. It wasn't an april fools joke hahahhahahaha

Re:April Fools to Reality in 6 months

[supernova_hq]

And only $60 more!

Re:Am I the only person ...

[rnturn]

No.

As I was scrolling down toward the bottom of the page, I saw that and quickly scrolled back up thinking "Huh? Pocket protector"? (Well, it is "News for Nerds", right?)

Value?? guess they think i get the bush tax cut..

[Anonymous Coward]

when it sells for the same price as a quickie printer like 40 bucks call me.. that would be a honest price..

Microscopic Speakers Sound Great

[Doc Ruby]

SoundAndVision.com (_Stereo Review_ magazine's website) is giving audiophile raves to a $180, 5.6 inch, 9.5 ounce portable speaker called Foxl. So the answer to the question is that for about $500, a projector and the Foxl could make a microscopic kit into a hugely entertaining movie theater.

Re:Microscopic Speakers Sound Great

[Whatsisname]

Thats because they pobably told the audiophiles that it actually cost $18,000

Re:Microscopic Speakers Sound Great

[Doc Ruby]

No, if you even bothered to click the link I so helpfully included, you'd see in the first few paragraphs that not only do the audiophile reviewers say it's $180, but they point out that it's a special discount to the public for a limited time, even though it rises to only about $250, and that it's worth something like 10x as much for its quality.

But hey, why not just say something stupid in public?

Re:Microscopic Speakers Sound Great

[Anonymous Coward]

What he meant to say was that the cables to hook them up cost $18,000.

Re:Microscopic Speakers Sound Great

[TeknoHog]

OK, small speakers can sound great, especially with a subwoofer. What I don't get is the article's point on the lack of speakers in a projector. It's like complaining that a fishtank doesn't come with a bicycle.

I can't imagine why somebody willing to set up a projector for a home theatre, would be satisfied with crappy sound coming from a completely wrong direction. I can understand monitors and TVs with speakers, because they are usually in sensible locations with respect to the picture.

Yet most of the projectors I've encountered have some kind of speaker systems, naturally with the requisite preamp and power amp stages. Can somebody here tell me why?

Re:Microscopic Speakers Sound Great

[funkatron]

Yet most of the projectors I've encountered have some kind of speaker systems, naturally with the requisite preamp and power amp stages. Can somebody here tell me why?

It's so you can put a film on while you figure out the soundsystem.

Killing things

[torstenvl]

I know people are complaining about the resolution, but honestly, the only time I want a bigger screen than my monitor is to play huge Quake III Arena on my wall.

(Yes, I know, but it suits my gaming needs. So sue me.)

New geek pick-up line

[Anonymous Coward]

"Is that a projector in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?"

I read that as "pocket protector."

[cygtoad]

A $359 pocket protector? Now that is the ultimate geek accessory.

Re:First? Not a chance

[ozmanjusri]

Must pretty darn hard to hold that thing still...

Not if I'm happy to see you.

Re:Am I the only person ...

[Anonymous Coward]

3M Launches First Pocket "Protector"

Great...now I have images a model rocket motor surrounded by dozens of BiC pens and mechanical pencils.
 
/damn it
//must resist temptation to launch pens into orbit

Smart phone interface!

[Scubaraf]

This is the killer app for this product. I work in a hospital - the reason we don't use PDA's or iPhones to interact with our patients' electronic records is that the screen is too small to see the necessary data and the interface is too slow for entering lengthy narrative information. Laptops or tablet PC's could do this, but they are too large to carry around in your pocket. Enter the iPhone with this projector and handwriting or voice recognition. Total game changer in my field.

Re:Smart phone interface!

[pentarou]

That sounds pretty awesome, but I see a few limitations: namely the need for an AC adapter and a projection wall, and the fact that hospital thin client workstations are usually already all over the place. Still, I'm with GP: this should be excellent for presentations on the go,--if you have enough battery for it.

nothing really new here

[cashman73]

It's interesting. But nothing really new or groundbreaking; we discussed another pocket projector that uses lasers back in January of this year. We also talked about other small projectors on April 1 of this year, too.

Re:nothing really new here

[ndege]

Actually, as another poster pointed out, what is groundbreaking is that this is the first uber-small projector to actually be "for sale". As I understand it, all the other "small" projectors are expensive prototypes used in large corporate peeing contests at trade-shows.

Chevy Volt anyone?

Re:nothing really new here

[halcyon1234]

Those are two completely different species of fish. That's like saying "why is the iPhone so great when we already have small computers in the form of an EEE PC"

Re:nothing really new here

[cashman73]

Um, if you RTFA, it's actually not for sale quite yet; though they do state that they intend it to be "on sale" by the end of the month,... Then again, 3D Realms has "intended" to sell Duke Nukem Forever for how long now?

so now that this is the ultimate projector...

[DragonTHC]

does that mean regular projectors will come down drastically in price?

didn't think so.

Seriously isn't that how it works? New tech is way expensive and old tech drops in price? This pocket projector seems downright reasonable for what it is.

Re:so now that this is the ultimate projector...

[ceoyoyo]

It's also nice that they use an LED. That probably won't burn out as fast as the lamps in regular projectors.

uh.. nice.. but kinda useless

[houbou]

I'm trying real hard to see how useful this gadget will be, I mean, up to 11 inches widescreen right now is kinda of .. "ahem" limiting. Laptops typically have 14 inches screens and up anyways, so, I can't see how this mini projector can compete with that.

But I suspect that when they can do something like 1280 x 1024, where you get about 3 feet of widescreen view , then it will be truly a useful device to use for meetings.

Re:uh.. nice.. but kinda useless

[zakezuke]

I'm trying real hard to see how useful this gadget will be, I mean, up to 11 inches widescreen right now is kinda of .. "ahem" limiting. Laptops typically have 14 inches screens and up anyways, so, I can't see how this mini projector can compete with that.

As I said in another post, an LCD screen is rather fragile, not the sort of thing you would choose to travel with if you had a choice.

If you had a laptop already, for that size use the damn screen. But I suspect that in a dark room you could expand this out beyond that which is practical for a laptop.

But, here's the kicker, a laptop has a bit of bulk to it. Imagine such a device on a portable DVD player. That would be rather handy. For portable applications I can see the benefits over a laptop LCD screen, mainly it's not as fragile I presume. Ditching the big display would have some advantages. As much as I like laptops, I don't like the whole clam shell screen attached aspect. Getting a wireless mouse/keyboard helps to a degree, but projecting would be effectively detaching the display from the unit. This would resolve some issues using the suckers on airplanes.

Re:uh.. nice.. but kinda useless

[supernova_hq]

Ever tried to mount your laptop screen on the ceiling? I find laying down on my back to be the most comfortable position while watching a movie.

Cell Phone Terminal Services Client

[davidwr]

With this and a virtual keyboard and mouse, you can carry your laptop in your pocket.

What, your laptop doesn't fit in your pocket? Would you settle for a cell phone running something like ThinStation and a cellular-internet hookup? Remember, "The network is the computer."

Re:Cell Phone Terminal Services Client

[atraintocry]

Cool idea, but RDP and VNC are bad enough over WiFi. Regardless of bandwidth, latency becomes an issue. Throwing a VPN in the mix is not going to help things (though I suppose you could always make your screen-sharing ports public, but asking to get hacked is not worth it when a smaller laptop will do the trick).

Not saying I wouldn't do it (jailbroken iPhones make it easy) but giving a presentation is stressful enough without having to fight the computer, so I wouldn't expect something like that to catch on until the networks improve.

In Sci-Fi We Trust

[Whiteox]

Bill The Galactic Hero, (by Harry Harrison - one of the better sci-fi novels) had a bit where Bill was continually being harassed by a trooper to convert to his religion. Once or maybe twice, the trooper got out a cheap little pocket projector displaying how the apocalypse and heaven would look like for Bill in the future.
I've read a lot of sci-fi, but that's the only book I can remember that uses a pocket projector.
There's a great quote in it that goes something like this:
"You are angry my Son. Anger is the first sign of doubt. And doubt is the first sign of belief!"

Re:First? Not a chance

[commodoresloat]

I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

Make that two now.

Re:First? Not a chance

[sydbarrett74]

Well y'know I do need a new pocket protector. Mine's getting a little funky and worn-out.

Pocket Projector, Pocket Proschecktor...

[Anonymous Coward]

Until it protects my pocket and projects, it is just useless...

Oh, yeah?

[hyades1]

I got yer pocket projector right here, buddy!

Re:Altoid Amps

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Electronics are small. That's hardly new.

Now, small speakers that don't suck, THAT would be new.

Now built this into cell phones

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait to see cell phones of the future

Won't go anywhere

[Stan Vassilev]

I don't want to put down their effort, but this is the fifth "first" portable projector I'm hearing about in the last 3-4 years and they all suffer from the same problems: low resolution and extremely low brightness.

One of the pocket projectors was even built into some models of cellphones (the fact we don't hear about such cellphones is a testament about the success of this feature).

The pricetag isn't way too high, but you have to consider that at this low res/lumen, it does perform worse than the screen of a cheap laptop, which costs only $100-200 more, and you already need a laptop to run this projector anyway.

Nerds, huh... don't make me laugh.

[F34nor]

Real nerds support Microvision's projector because they want virtual retinal displays.

Re:First? Not a chance

[SEWilco]

It's in his shirt pocket so his avatar is imaged on his neck.

How hot does it get?

[Rick Richardson]

How hot does it get when projected on a wall?

Say, 4 foot by 6 foot?

Re:How hot does it get?

[Joce640k]

It's LEDs, and hard to see at 11 inches, so I'm guessing "not very".

And next, arriving in time for Christmas...

[Wilson_6500]

The 3M Pocket Projector Protector

(sorry)

Phone

[moniker127]

How long untill someone figures out how to hook one of these into a phone and laser keyboard ( http://www.virtual-laser-keyboard.com/ ) to make a mobile computer of light?

Re:Am I the only person ...

[master5o1]

Somehow you've made me start thinking of Pocket Protractors. But seriously, all this talk of Pocket just reminds me of Pokémon.

Re:Am I the only person ...

[master5o1]

I should have used $something instead ofan html-type attempt XD

Even older were IBM pocket protectors.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

- Staple two IBM tab cards together along one narrow and about 3/4 of two long sides.

  - Fold down the top of one card.

  - Stuff in pocket.

projector

[alxkit]

3M sent us one of their first samples of their MPro110 mini projector a few weeks ago (but asked us to keep it on the down-low for a while).

yup, slash dot is the stealthiest of down-low places to keep a secret. seriously. shhh. i think i hear them coming.

Raving

[Rhesusmonkey]

When these replace glowsticks at the raves, you give me a call, I'm falling off the wagon.

A mere $359

[heroine]

Whew. Amazing how cheap $359 became when gas hit $4.

Lamp Costs

[evilviper]

The projector will sell for a mere $359.

With projectors, the cost of replacement lamps QUICKLY surpasses the cost of the projector itself. So, quoting just the sale price of a projector is a bit like quoting the price of a new car, without any mention of gas mileage (or engine specs like # of cyl. and hp, which can give you some idea).

While being "pocket" sized is interesting, I don't think the size convenience is nearly enough to make up for the short lived and very expensive bulbs found is ALL mass-market projectors. Size and inital price be-dammed... I'd much rather spend slightly more up-front, and deal with a physically larger projector, to get one that runs for 6000 hours on a $30 bulb, like the Lumenlab's EVO http://www.aboutprojectors.com/Lumenlab-eVo-v12-projector.html

It looks like they've discontinued production, but it's Lumenlabs, so you can download the plans and start making one yourself.

Re:Lamp Costs

[Anonymous Coward]

If you RTFA, you will discover they are using LED.

Re:Lamp Costs

[evilviper]

If you RTFA, you will discover they are using LED.

I did RTFA.

LEDs are not magic. They still have a relatively short lifespan, and no doubt much HIGHER replacement cost. They just happen to use up slightly less power than HID bulbs.

Re:Lamp Costs

[ceoyoyo]

Apparently it uses an LED. That should take forever to burn out, and at that power is probably fairly cheap to replace as well, at least relative to what normal projector bulbs cost.

Re:Lamp Costs

[chrnb]

There are a lot of other cheap chinese brands making similar projectors. I bought one from the factory making for Lumenlab, for 300 usd. It's noisy as hell but great for wii games or watching tv.

Re:First? Not a chance

[arpeccop]

Well, it's great step forward anyway. Can't wait for that sort of projectors imbedded into goggles and able to project directly to retina.

Hard to see at 11 inches?

[Joce640k]

Seriously, what use is it? Real projectors are hardly huge (mine is about the same size as an Eeee).

For $25 more they could put a proper LED in it.

Making bulb-based units obsolete...

[PhotoGuy]

The whole bulb-based generation of projectors always amazed me, with the astounding costs of replacement bulbs.

Does anyone know what drives that? Is it simply that they are associated with devices that used to cost several thousand? When my sharp projector's bulb blew, I looked around, and it is cheaper to buy a new projector than replace a freakin' bulb. And this new generation of projectors are selling for half of that.

I actually disassembled the bulb assembly on my Sharp, and dug the core element out of the epoxy, finding some identifying marks on it. It seems that very similar bulbs are sold for $20-$30 for use in fishtanks and hydroponics (seems that type of bulb element is popular among the pot growers :). They're also used in modestly priced headlights.

When I find something close to the same element, I will likely buy one, and try fixing the old bulb. The two questions I have, would be the type of epoxy to use, and the type of solder to use on the element's contacts; do they have to be special to deal with the high temperatures involved, or will standard epoxy/solder work? Also, it's hard to nail down what the specific "color temperature" was for the old projector, but I think getting a fairly bright/wide one will do, even if it's slightly off.

Anyhow, I'm glad to see the trend to smaller, lighter, and most importantly *cheaper* projection technologies.

The encoder in your DVD player

[tepples]

I understand, but what device has non-square pixels?

A color encoder taking CCIR 601 data and feeding it over a composite, S-video, or component cable to a display. One of these is the encoder in your set-top DVD player.

Or every 8-bit home computer, every IBM-compatible PC in CGA, EGA, or VGA mode 13h, and every video game console prior to the original PlayStation.

Re:The encoder in your DVD player

[MightyYar]

Right, so besides your old analog TV - what devices use non-square pixels? This device is not an analog TV, so 640x480 should be perfectly capable of DVD video. At worst, it would be throwing away 12% of the video - and that assumes that you for some reason are displaying the overscan edges.

I'll let your list of devices incapable of displaying a DVD slide... :)

Re:First? Not a chance

[Anonymous Coward]

They make rocket protectors now?
jeez, i am behind on the news.

TV Land is 4:3

[tepples]

What is recorded 4:3?

Everything shown on the TV Land channel.

Some feature films are shot in 4:3 and cropped to 1.85:1 (close to 16:9) for theatrical release using "tilt and scan". Others, especially Pixar animated films, switch between shooting in 16:9 with "pan and scan" and shooting in 4:3 with "tilt and scan" per shot.

Multiplayer with one PC?

[tepples]

but honestly, the only time I want a bigger screen than my monitor is to play huge Quake III Arena on my wall.

What do you do when you have friends or relatives over, and they don't own their own PCs (for example, they might be children), yet they still want to play video games with you?

Re:First? Not a chance

[Blokus]

Chocolate Cake! I like it a lot. Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry I was only of by like 9 consonants and 3 or 4 vowels.

Rear Projection

[computechnica]

These little projectors would work better a source for a rear projection arrangement. I have an old 3-tube rear projection TV that has a un-adjustable alignment issue, this little box could replace the projector assembly as long as the focal length coud be adjusted enough.

Is that a projector in your pocket?

[Anonymous Coward]

or are you just happy to see me?

What they didn't show...

[Capt James McCarthy]

The power supply is a 12x12 brick.

Re:First? Not a chance

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

Bake that two now.

There, fixed that for ya.

Re:First? Not a chance

[Boogaroo]

We've had them for a long, long time.

Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.

I hate to break it to you, but you're still off by one consonant.

Not just for cell phones

[Anonymous Coward]

I expect to see something along these lines implemented into the next generation of portable game systems. They could have a form factor basically the same as a controller, allowing for mor ergonomic design. The projector could be docked to the unit and feature a 2.5" LCD or OLED display. It could also be undocked to place on a desk/table and project on the wall. Couple this with advances in local wireless alowing for ad hoc networking. Or wireless controls able to hook in, but run the game standalone. This will create the 'feel' of playing on current home systems without lugging around a 50lb XBox.

Bonus points if someone rigs a system like above to run a few emulators so I can take my PS2 library with me on an SD card.

3M MPro on display at lolafest

[Anonymous Coward]

if you're in london ontario this weekend,
the lola festival (http://www.lolafest.com) will have a 3M MPro on demo as an art piece. can't wait to check it out!