I see that you have been fooled by the marketing gimmicks. Let me clarify for you, so you don't get duped into thinking you're buying HD, when you actually are not.
Look at that link you provided and go to the line that says "Native" resolution. Notice that it says 1024x768. That means there is an array of mirrors on the DLP chip that is 1024 mirrors wide by 768 mirrors tall. Each one of these mirrors can display one pixel (ie, the color reflected off that mirror is the color of the pixel on the screen**). So the full 1024wide x 768tall represents the full picture on the screen. You can never get any more pixels in the width or any more pixels in the height, because you don't have any more mirrors on the DLP chip to give you those pixels.
Now, let's look at a 720p signal. A 720p signal is (digitally) 1280 pixels wide x 720 pixels tall. So, if you lay the 720p signal directly onto the mirrors on the DLP chip, 256 pixels would be hanging off the side, with no mirror to display them on the screen. The DLP chip is 1024 mirrors (pixels) wide, and the signal is 1280 pixels wide. Even though the signal is sending you more than 1024 pixels in width, it is physically impossible to display more than 1024 of those pixels... you just can't, there are no mirrors to display them. So, what do we do, and what does the projector do?
The projector uses an internal scaler to remove some pixels, and remix the colors on other pixels. So, the scaler takes a 1280x720 signal, removes a bunch of pixels, remixes a bunch of other pixels, and gives you a new signal: 1024x576***. Hooray, this new signal is small enough to be displayed within our 1024x768 mirrors on our DLP chip. Sure, we are wasting some mirrors on the top and bottom (we need to retain the original aspect ratio so that the signal doesn't appear squished), but at least we can display the signal. These wasted pixels are the black bars on top and bottom that you see on the screen.
So you might ask, why is this not HD? Well, it's not HD because you've compressed the signal and lost some of the information from the original 720p (HD) signal. Heck, if you compress the signal even further, you can get a 853 x 480 signal (480p). Or you can compress even further and get a 64x36 pixel signal... is that HD? Hell no. You could barey discern one blob from another in that signal.
So there you have it, hope this helps you out in your quest for HD. Just because it says it can display 1080i, doesn't mean the native resolution is 1920x1080. DLP projectors that can actually (truthfully) display a 1080i signal cost a minimum of $20,000.
**Well, it's actually more complicated than that because the mirrors only reflect white light from the lamp, but then it passes through the color wheel at the right time to project the proper color. But for simplicity of a resolution discussion, we'll leave the color wheel for some other time.
***This is called a WSVGA resolution, do a search for projectors with it... oddly enough there are a bunch projectors at this resolution... I wonder why?
Um, by definition your 800x600 DLP can not display HD. I already have an 800x600 DLP. But that's the whole point of this little conversation: I want a DLP projector that can do 720p on the cheap. Your projector (and mine) can not do HD, and can not display 720p. When you say "the high-def picture is exquisite" you are only lying to yourself, because guess what: you aren't seeing a high-def picture. That's all marketing hype "capable of accepting up to 1080i, blah, blah". That's just the capability of the internal scaler. It is capable of taking your 1080 or 720 signal and chopping it down (ie removing and remixing pixels) so that it will fit in your 800x600 display. The 800x600 is a physical quantity. There are 800x600 mirrors on the DLP chip - you can't fake more mirrors, you can't cheat, that's all you get, you will never see more pixels than that.
The SP5000 uses an LCD, not DLP. We were talking about DLPs due to the drawbacks of LCDs. I know 720p LCDs are cheap, but DLPs are still expensive. I stand by my $3k remark from earlier. Although you could probably work out a deal to get one for a little less ($2.5k or something), they are typically listed above $3k.
And on a side note, we're talking retail prices here too. Of course you could pick up a busted up used one for like $500, but we're not talking about that.
"From the makers of blah, blah, and blah. Comes a visionary motion picture event directed by blah. Who's work on blah, blah, and blah, earned him Hollywood's greatest blah award. Raved about by critics around the world through blah, blah, and blah, this is one event that you don't want to miss. Featuring the greatest actor of our time, blah. And featuring the greatest actress of our time, blah. From blah films comes a presentation by blah studios.......... Two Monks Getting Kicked in the Nuts. Don't miss it November 2005!"
How about just hire new actors? The big stars aren't the only ones that can act well. I love it when I go see a movie and I don't recognize a single face, yet everyone can act well. To me, one of the worst things I can see in a movie is the same face that I've seen in 10 other movies. Sure, some actors have a unique style that might be good to use in a particular movie. But most parts can be played by multiple people because it is a generic part that involves normal acting and emotions, so just pick up someone that hasn't hit the big time yet and will take $0.5 million to do the whole movie. Whether or not you agree that these are good actors or not... I'm sick of seeing Tom Cruise as the hot shot, or Matt Damon as the quirky guy, or Robert De Niro as the rough mob guy, etc, etc (sorry, I couldn't think of any women of the top of my head that I was sick of seeing since most of the ones I recall are hotties). Somes rolls are refreshing though because it really does seem like a completely new person... I.E. Jim Carrey in Pet Detective / Cable guy versus Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
It's not a cultural thing and it's not a meme, it's the truth. There have always been bad teenagers, but up until about the mid 90s, you could usually report to their parents who would dish out the punishment. Nowadays, it seems that many parents are offended that you would report to them about their child's misbehavior, much less ask them to dish out some punishment. I have observed this somewhat myself, but also from talking to teachers who have taught since the early 90s. They comment that parents are less and less responsive over the years, and more likely to give the teachers attitude about their kid's actions.
Rub the dog's nose in his feces?? He would have thought I was congratulating him on a nice shit job on the floor. Next morning I would find 20 piles of shit all over the floor with the dog sitting there wagging his tail and looking for some appreciative gesture in return.
Assuming the stereotype is correct for a certain number of black women... when you encounter those certain types they only respond to brute force and in your face "shut the fuck up before I stab you" mentalities. Otherwise, they'll walk all over you because they think everyone should step out of their way.
I'm replying to myself, but oh well. You must be talking about an LCD projector. I was thinking DLP. I can't stand LCDs (spacing between pixels, black levels / contrast, brightness) so I only look at DLPs. An HD DLP is still over $3k.
I'm not sure what the reasoning was there, but I could imagine it was to not give us ideas. That way we wouldn't be involved with pregnancies at the age of 13 or 14. Most of the scenes in rated R movies are just plain hot and steamy sex scenes anyhow, there really is no romantic intimacy involved, it's all about the physical act.
I mentioned physical punishment (spanking, etc) to some people that may be upcoming parents in the next 5 years, and they just about freaked out at me. They couldn't believe that I thought causing physical harm to your own children to teach them a lesson was acceptable. Yet we see it happen all the time in nature, even to a worse degree. The youngsters get nipped at all the time to let them know who is boss. You have to wonder what these people are thinking...
Well, I didn't see the grudge in the theater, but I did see it at home with some people, and we were all laughing at the thing about 1/2 way through as they started showing that black thing running all over the place and showing up under people's bed covers. You gotta admit, it was so ridiculous that it was pretty funny. I would have definitely held back my laughter in the theater because I am considerate of other people, but I would have been hysterical inside.
You are incredible lucky or you have an unbeatable tolerance for other people's stupidity. I don't go to the movies nearly as often as you but I have experienced several instances of people's phones ringing, people talking on their phones, stupid people doing stupid things just to be funny, laser pointers, crying kids, talking kids, parents talking to their kids, teenagers moving around in the theater, etc, etc, etc. And the floors aare sticky 1/2 the time.
I don't know what you do to avoid it all, but trust me, and trust the 100s of others who have said the same thing: it happens all the freaking time. Just count your lucky stars that it hasn't happened to you.
Maybe it's like the guy that says he has never gotten a ticket... and then he gets pulled over the next day for speeding:\
If I had a home theater set up and had people come over to watch and all they did was yak about their weekend or talk on their cell phone, I would kick them out and never invite them back. And I think most people would do the same. So, I dunno what you are talking about.
One time there was a lady sitting in the seat in front of me that had her cell ring. She was completely oblivious to the fact that it was ringing. So after the forth ring, I leaned forward and quietly said "excuse me ma'am, I believe your phone is ringing". She replies with an "oh, ok" or something, not "sorry" or anything. And then she proceeds to answer the phone and begins talking as she stands up and very slowly makes her way down the aisle, jabbering in a normal voice the entire time. I couldn't believe it. I try to catch really early or really late shows anymore to avoid as many idiots as possible. Although I would prefer to have my home theater up and working in full force.
I watched aliens with my parents when I was around 10 years old (along with my siblings). Scared the shit out of all of us. About the only thing we weren't supposed to watch were sex scenes in movies. At home we would fast forward through them. Or, if at the theater (we went to rated R movies as kids quite often, heh), we were told to cover our eyes. We went to the rated R movies because they were more interesting in terms of plot and acting. The PG13 movies were typically pretty crappy. It's kinda funny thinking about it now, but we aren't screwed up because of the violence or anything.
I found these few sections from the article (towards the end of the article) very interesting. It is in regards to making movies available to home consumers immediately at release.
Last week, John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, accused Robert A. Iger , the incoming chief executive of Walt Disney, of leveling a "death threat" at theater owners for having suggested that the lesson to be drawn from the slump is that moviegoers want films to be accessible in theaters and on DVD simultaneously.
Mr. Iger had observed that studios ignored consumers at their peril. "We can't allow tradition to stand in the way of where the consumer can go, or wants to go," he told analysts this month, warning that "the music industry learned this the hard way."
Mr. Iger's conclusion - that consumers want the choice of seeing movies in their homes at the same time as in the theater - is being reached by others in the industry as well. But it remains contentious, resisted not only by the owners of theater chains. Mr. Lynton of Sony was adamant that the theatrical experience should be protected, while Mr. Shaye said he was still "on the fence" on the subject.
Warren Lieberfarb, a former Warner Brothers executive who was a main advocate of the DVD in the early 90's, warned that going to the movies had become too expensive over all, given the excellent quality of home theater. "It's not just the DVD. It's not just the DVD window," he said. "It's the flat-panel television and the sound system, with the DVD option, that has radically changed the quality of the in-home experience. The home theater has arrived." As a result, he said, "you have to change the business model of the movie business."
I personally find this extremely exciting. When you think about it, the movie theaters have a stranglehold on consumers in terms of being able to access new releases. If you want to see a new release, you only have one place to go: the local cineplex. Now, the cineplexes do have to compete with each other, but in the end all of their business model's are about reducing costs. So, what you end up with is the crap that we are offered today: sticky floors, bad seating, bad sound, dirty screens, noisy people, 400 seat theaters where only 150 seats really have a good view, etc. They are providing the bare minimum: a chance to see the movie. Sure, there exists the high quality theaters that take an interest in their patron's experience (small theaters, properly calibrated sound systems, comfortable seating, gourmet food service, ambiance, etc). But they are few are far between because the cost is much higher to run such a theater and the number of patrons is lower.
If the releases were available to the consumer, I think we would experience a renaissance in theater opportunities. People all over would be running custom theaters to cater the movie experience for their friends and family. Think movie houses now: at 7:00 pm 20 people show up, drink and eat for 30 minutes, socialize, etc. Then everyone moves into the theater for a 7:45 pm showing of the featured movie.
The theaters would still exist for the masses, but more people would get into the customized experience for the quality of it all.
Um, 50 years? Did you ask if he was kidding you? Considering the current state of laser weapons in the lab, the ABL (air borne laser) program, other ground-based lasers, and laser communication systems in space, I would be willing to bet that we'll see something a LOT earlier than 50 years. Where were we in 1955? Where are we today? Where were we in 1985? Where are we today? Catch my drift? The rate of technological developments is exponential. Each subsequent development enables us to make new developments faster.
Slashdot Mirror
I see that you have been fooled by the marketing gimmicks. Let me clarify for you, so you don't get duped into thinking you're buying HD, when you actually are not.
Look at that link you provided and go to the line that says "Native" resolution. Notice that it says 1024x768. That means there is an array of mirrors on the DLP chip that is 1024 mirrors wide by 768 mirrors tall. Each one of these mirrors can display one pixel (ie, the color reflected off that mirror is the color of the pixel on the screen**). So the full 1024wide x 768tall represents the full picture on the screen. You can never get any more pixels in the width or any more pixels in the height, because you don't have any more mirrors on the DLP chip to give you those pixels.
Now, let's look at a 720p signal. A 720p signal is (digitally) 1280 pixels wide x 720 pixels tall. So, if you lay the 720p signal directly onto the mirrors on the DLP chip, 256 pixels would be hanging off the side, with no mirror to display them on the screen. The DLP chip is 1024 mirrors (pixels) wide, and the signal is 1280 pixels wide. Even though the signal is sending you more than 1024 pixels in width, it is physically impossible to display more than 1024 of those pixels
The projector uses an internal scaler to remove some pixels, and remix the colors on other pixels. So, the scaler takes a 1280x720 signal, removes a bunch of pixels, remixes a bunch of other pixels, and gives you a new signal: 1024x576***. Hooray, this new signal is small enough to be displayed within our 1024x768 mirrors on our DLP chip. Sure, we are wasting some mirrors on the top and bottom (we need to retain the original aspect ratio so that the signal doesn't appear squished), but at least we can display the signal. These wasted pixels are the black bars on top and bottom that you see on the screen.
So you might ask, why is this not HD? Well, it's not HD because you've compressed the signal and lost some of the information from the original 720p (HD) signal. Heck, if you compress the signal even further, you can get a 853 x 480 signal (480p). Or you can compress even further and get a 64x36 pixel signal
So there you have it, hope this helps you out in your quest for HD. Just because it says it can display 1080i, doesn't mean the native resolution is 1920x1080. DLP projectors that can actually (truthfully) display a 1080i signal cost a minimum of $20,000.
**Well, it's actually more complicated than that because the mirrors only reflect white light from the lamp, but then it passes through the color wheel at the right time to project the proper color. But for simplicity of a resolution discussion, we'll leave the color wheel for some other time.
***This is called a WSVGA resolution, do a search for projectors with it
More links:
Discussion on why broadcasters are using "i" signals versus "p" signals, ie 1080i, 720p, 480p. Note: DVDs are a 480i signal.
More information on HDTV and broadcasting than you probably care to know.
A
Um, by definition your 800x600 DLP can not display HD. I already have an 800x600 DLP. But that's the whole point of this little conversation: I want a DLP projector that can do 720p on the cheap. Your projector (and mine) can not do HD, and can not display 720p. When you say "the high-def picture is exquisite" you are only lying to yourself, because guess what: you aren't seeing a high-def picture. That's all marketing hype "capable of accepting up to 1080i, blah, blah". That's just the capability of the internal scaler. It is capable of taking your 1080 or 720 signal and chopping it down (ie removing and remixing pixels) so that it will fit in your 800x600 display. The 800x600 is a physical quantity. There are 800x600 mirrors on the DLP chip - you can't fake more mirrors, you can't cheat, that's all you get, you will never see more pixels than that.
Hold on a minute, you mean the answer to life, the universe, and everything is not money? Boy am I in the wrong line of work.
The SP5000 uses an LCD, not DLP. We were talking about DLPs due to the drawbacks of LCDs. I know 720p LCDs are cheap, but DLPs are still expensive. I stand by my $3k remark from earlier. Although you could probably work out a deal to get one for a little less ($2.5k or something), they are typically listed above $3k.
And on a side note, we're talking retail prices here too. Of course you could pick up a busted up used one for like $500, but we're not talking about that.
Wait wait wait a minute. Hold on here.
.......... Two Monks Getting Kicked in the Nuts. Don't miss it November 2005!"
Are you telling me that
"From the makers of blah, blah, and blah. Comes a visionary motion picture event directed by blah. Who's work on blah, blah, and blah, earned him Hollywood's greatest blah award. Raved about by critics around the world through blah, blah, and blah, this is one event that you don't want to miss. Featuring the greatest actor of our time, blah. And featuring the greatest actress of our time, blah. From blah films comes a presentation by blah studios
doesn't do it for you anymore?
1) That's a demo unit: meaning used and abused in a show room.
2) It's not HD: XGA is 1024 x 768, it can not display a 720p signal.
How about just hire new actors? The big stars aren't the only ones that can act well. I love it when I go see a movie and I don't recognize a single face, yet everyone can act well. To me, one of the worst things I can see in a movie is the same face that I've seen in 10 other movies. Sure, some actors have a unique style that might be good to use in a particular movie. But most parts can be played by multiple people because it is a generic part that involves normal acting and emotions, so just pick up someone that hasn't hit the big time yet and will take $0.5 million to do the whole movie. Whether or not you agree that these are good actors or not ... I'm sick of seeing Tom Cruise as the hot shot, or Matt Damon as the quirky guy, or Robert De Niro as the rough mob guy, etc, etc (sorry, I couldn't think of any women of the top of my head that I was sick of seeing since most of the ones I recall are hotties). Somes rolls are refreshing though because it really does seem like a completely new person ... I.E. Jim Carrey in Pet Detective / Cable guy versus Jim Carrey in Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind.
It's not a cultural thing and it's not a meme, it's the truth. There have always been bad teenagers, but up until about the mid 90s, you could usually report to their parents who would dish out the punishment. Nowadays, it seems that many parents are offended that you would report to them about their child's misbehavior, much less ask them to dish out some punishment. I have observed this somewhat myself, but also from talking to teachers who have taught since the early 90s. They comment that parents are less and less responsive over the years, and more likely to give the teachers attitude about their kid's actions.
I'm shopping online. Where are these sub-$1k HD DLP projectors?
???
Rub the dog's nose in his feces?? He would have thought I was congratulating him on a nice shit job on the floor. Next morning I would find 20 piles of shit all over the floor with the dog sitting there wagging his tail and looking for some appreciative gesture in return.
Assuming the stereotype is correct for a certain number of black women ... when you encounter those certain types they only respond to brute force and in your face "shut the fuck up before I stab you" mentalities. Otherwise, they'll walk all over you because they think everyone should step out of their way.
Wow, those are some pretty steep demand/supply curves.
I'm replying to myself, but oh well. You must be talking about an LCD projector. I was thinking DLP. I can't stand LCDs (spacing between pixels, black levels / contrast, brightness) so I only look at DLPs. An HD DLP is still over $3k.
Ok, please tell me where you are getting an HD projector for $1500, I would really like to know.
I'm not sure what the reasoning was there, but I could imagine it was to not give us ideas. That way we wouldn't be involved with pregnancies at the age of 13 or 14. Most of the scenes in rated R movies are just plain hot and steamy sex scenes anyhow, there really is no romantic intimacy involved, it's all about the physical act.
I mentioned physical punishment (spanking, etc) to some people that may be upcoming parents in the next 5 years, and they just about freaked out at me. They couldn't believe that I thought causing physical harm to your own children to teach them a lesson was acceptable. Yet we see it happen all the time in nature, even to a worse degree. The youngsters get nipped at all the time to let them know who is boss. You have to wonder what these people are thinking ...
Well, I didn't see the grudge in the theater, but I did see it at home with some people, and we were all laughing at the thing about 1/2 way through as they started showing that black thing running all over the place and showing up under people's bed covers. You gotta admit, it was so ridiculous that it was pretty funny. I would have definitely held back my laughter in the theater because I am considerate of other people, but I would have been hysterical inside.
You are incredible lucky or you have an unbeatable tolerance for other people's stupidity. I don't go to the movies nearly as often as you but I have experienced several instances of people's phones ringing, people talking on their phones, stupid people doing stupid things just to be funny, laser pointers, crying kids, talking kids, parents talking to their kids, teenagers moving around in the theater, etc, etc, etc. And the floors aare sticky 1/2 the time.
... and then he gets pulled over the next day for speeding :\
I don't know what you do to avoid it all, but trust me, and trust the 100s of others who have said the same thing: it happens all the freaking time. Just count your lucky stars that it hasn't happened to you.
Maybe it's like the guy that says he has never gotten a ticket
If I had a home theater set up and had people come over to watch and all they did was yak about their weekend or talk on their cell phone, I would kick them out and never invite them back. And I think most people would do the same. So, I dunno what you are talking about.
Exactly what I was thinking. The analyzer was just the icing on the cake.
I guess the guy just has so much money to blow with his 9x6 screen that he has to do his calculations with AutoCad.
I still look similar enough to the picture on my college student ID that I pass for the ~ $6.00 ticket :)
One time there was a lady sitting in the seat in front of me that had her cell ring. She was completely oblivious to the fact that it was ringing. So after the forth ring, I leaned forward and quietly said "excuse me ma'am, I believe your phone is ringing". She replies with an "oh, ok" or something, not "sorry" or anything. And then she proceeds to answer the phone and begins talking as she stands up and very slowly makes her way down the aisle, jabbering in a normal voice the entire time. I couldn't believe it. I try to catch really early or really late shows anymore to avoid as many idiots as possible. Although I would prefer to have my home theater up and working in full force.
I watched aliens with my parents when I was around 10 years old (along with my siblings). Scared the shit out of all of us. About the only thing we weren't supposed to watch were sex scenes in movies. At home we would fast forward through them. Or, if at the theater (we went to rated R movies as kids quite often, heh), we were told to cover our eyes. We went to the rated R movies because they were more interesting in terms of plot and acting. The PG13 movies were typically pretty crappy. It's kinda funny thinking about it now, but we aren't screwed up because of the violence or anything.
I found these few sections from the article (towards the end of the article) very interesting. It is in regards to making movies available to home consumers immediately at release.
Last week, John Fithian, the president of the National Association of Theatre Owners, accused Robert A. Iger , the incoming chief executive of Walt Disney, of leveling a "death threat" at theater owners for having suggested that the lesson to be drawn from the slump is that moviegoers want films to be accessible in theaters and on DVD simultaneously.
Mr. Iger had observed that studios ignored consumers at their peril. "We can't allow tradition to stand in the way of where the consumer can go, or wants to go," he told analysts this month, warning that "the music industry learned this the hard way."
Mr. Iger's conclusion - that consumers want the choice of seeing movies in their homes at the same time as in the theater - is being reached by others in the industry as well. But it remains contentious, resisted not only by the owners of theater chains. Mr. Lynton of Sony was adamant that the theatrical experience should be protected, while Mr. Shaye said he was still "on the fence" on the subject.
Warren Lieberfarb, a former Warner Brothers executive who was a main advocate of the DVD in the early 90's, warned that going to the movies had become too expensive over all, given the excellent quality of home theater. "It's not just the DVD. It's not just the DVD window," he said. "It's the flat-panel television and the sound system, with the DVD option, that has radically changed the quality of the in-home experience. The home theater has arrived." As a result, he said, "you have to change the business model of the movie business."
I personally find this extremely exciting. When you think about it, the movie theaters have a stranglehold on consumers in terms of being able to access new releases. If you want to see a new release, you only have one place to go: the local cineplex. Now, the cineplexes do have to compete with each other, but in the end all of their business model's are about reducing costs. So, what you end up with is the crap that we are offered today: sticky floors, bad seating, bad sound, dirty screens, noisy people, 400 seat theaters where only 150 seats really have a good view, etc. They are providing the bare minimum: a chance to see the movie. Sure, there exists the high quality theaters that take an interest in their patron's experience (small theaters, properly calibrated sound systems, comfortable seating, gourmet food service, ambiance, etc). But they are few are far between because the cost is much higher to run such a theater and the number of patrons is lower.
If the releases were available to the consumer, I think we would experience a renaissance in theater opportunities. People all over would be running custom theaters to cater the movie experience for their friends and family. Think movie houses now: at 7:00 pm 20 people show up, drink and eat for 30 minutes, socialize, etc. Then everyone moves into the theater for a 7:45 pm showing of the featured movie.
The theaters would still exist for the masses, but more people would get into the customized experience for the quality of it all.
Um, 50 years? Did you ask if he was kidding you? Considering the current state of laser weapons in the lab, the ABL (air borne laser) program, other ground-based lasers, and laser communication systems in space, I would be willing to bet that we'll see something a LOT earlier than 50 years. Where were we in 1955? Where are we today? Where were we in 1985? Where are we today? Catch my drift? The rate of technological developments is exponential. Each subsequent development enables us to make new developments faster.