Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

could there ever be a small cheap DLP projection TV?

Last response: in Home Theatre
Share
Anonymous
November 12, 2004 11:21:43 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Do you think it might be possible someday to sell a smallish
tabletop-size DLP projection TV at competitive prices, or will that
technology not scale down cheaply enough? A micromirror projection
system would certainly have advantages over CRTs in the sub-30" sizes,
if it could be cheap enough...

One thing I don't like about my Samsung CRT, besides its ponderosity,
is the rayther large dot pitch. With projection, dots don't need to
be pitched...
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 12:08:54 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Q: What would you consider cheap? What else would you want for specs and
what would you use it for?

--
Jackman Media(tm) http://www.jacktech.net
"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0411122021.32fb8f1@posting.google.com...
> Do you think it might be possible someday to sell a smallish
> tabletop-size DLP projection TV at competitive prices, or will that
> technology not scale down cheaply enough? A micromirror projection
> system would certainly have advantages over CRTs in the sub-30" sizes,
> if it could be cheap enough...
>
> One thing I don't like about my Samsung CRT, besides its ponderosity,
> is the rayther large dot pitch. With projection, dots don't need to
> be pitched...
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 3:36:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0411122021.32fb8f1@posting.google.com...
> Do you think it might be possible someday to sell a smallish
> tabletop-size DLP projection TV at competitive prices, or will that
> technology not scale down cheaply enough? A micromirror projection
> system would certainly have advantages over CRTs in the sub-30" sizes,
> if it could be cheap enough...

Bove at MIT is working on one small enough to fit in a cell phone.
Uses lasers scanned by micromirrors and not a micromirror array.
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
Anonymous
November 13, 2004 5:17:57 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Paul Jackman" <jacktech@jacktech.net> wrote in message news:<cn54hn025d7@enews4.newsguy.com>...

>>Do you think it might be possible someday to sell a smallish
>>tabletop-size DLP projection TV at competitive prices, or will that
>>technology not scale down cheaply enough?
>
> Q: What would you consider cheap?

Cheap enough to compete with a CRT of the same size. What I'm
wondering is whether maybe we can get to a point where there isn't a
niche for CRTs any more, because LCDs will fill up the miniature
portable end and projection could shrink down into the larger end of
the CRT market.

I'm pessimistic about this happening... CRTs are, like, the internal
combustion engine of image display: archaic and clunky and toxic and
impossible for any new technology to kill off. It's like trying to
replace magnetic disk drives with advanced solid-state data storage:
the disk just keeps staying cheaper than whatever else you throw at
it.

On the encouraging side, I see DLP front-projectors today are no more
expensive than LCD ones. If DLP chips can sustain a nice
price-dropping curve for a while, they might cut into the budget
market. I dunno, though... my guess is, with some effort you might
get a 25" DLP rear-projection TV down to $500, but there will be $250
high-def CRTs by then, not much smaller. I was basically just
wondering if other people's guesses are more optimistic than mine.

> What else would you want for specs and what would you use it for?

Well, I'd want it to have the same picture quality as a large DLP.
Though with a smaller set you'd have to work harder on widening the
viewing angle.

Somebody else wrote me and said:

> For a small desktop set, the direct view LCD is almost certain to take
> the lead in the near future. Much smaller (thinner), and much better
> viewing angles.

When I look at the picture quality of today's direct-view LCDs, I
remain unconvinced that they can push out CRTs except in the smallest
size categories.
November 14, 2004 4:30:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

With nearly two million "pixels" needed in a 1920x1080 display, and a tube
type tv needing a metal dot mask to separate the 3 colors, you can see why
small (less than 40 inche) table top crt sets displaying HD are an
impossibility.
"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0411122021.32fb8f1@posting.google.com...
> Do you think it might be possible someday to sell a smallish
> tabletop-size DLP projection TV at competitive prices, or will that
> technology not scale down cheaply enough? A micromirror projection
> system would certainly have advantages over CRTs in the sub-30" sizes,
> if it could be cheap enough...
>
> One thing I don't like about my Samsung CRT, besides its ponderosity,
> is the rayther large dot pitch. With projection, dots don't need to
> be pitched...
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 4:38:10 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<H_idnZolsaK82wvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>...

> Bove at MIT is working on one small enough to fit in a cell phone.
> Uses lasers scanned by micromirrors and not a micromirror array.

Whoa... If that also gets cheap enough to fit in a cell phone, then
it's something that could be scaled to ANY size cheaper than
everything else out there!
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 5:28:18 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"Paul Kienitz" <paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net> wrote in message
news:e5747637.0411140138.7aed8930@posting.google.com...
> "Randy Sweeney" <rsweeney1@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:<H_idnZolsaK82wvcRVn-sQ@comcast.com>...
>
>> Bove at MIT is working on one small enough to fit in a cell phone.
>> Uses lasers scanned by micromirrors and not a micromirror array.
>
> Whoa... If that also gets cheap enough to fit in a cell phone, then
> it's something that could be scaled to ANY size cheaper than
> everything else out there!

that's the idea - ubiquitous displays , in and on everything... or everyone

there are two schools of thought... one is that you place displays on
everything, the other is that you place displays on everyone.

the former is the approach we have taken up to now.... and much like the old
wired phone paradigm
but the latter is actually cheaper since there are more places than there
are people and a display without a person watching it makes no sense.
Anonymous
November 14, 2004 8:13:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"curmudgeon" <curmudgeon@buzzoff.net> wrote in message news:<JVCld.68454$Tq1.55712@bignews1.bellsouth.net>...

> With nearly two million "pixels" needed in a 1920x1080 display, and a tube
> type tv needing a metal dot mask to separate the 3 colors, you can see why
> small (less than 40 inche) table top crt sets displaying HD are an
> impossibility.

Huh?

I don't see why they can't make any size from forty inches to four
inches. Is it difficult to make two million small holes in a metal
mask? I think not.

Admittedly, my Samsung only has about 800 color triplets per
horizontal line, but that's because it's a cheap TV, not because
there's anything impossible about making it finer. For instance, the
monitor I'm reading this on (which I bought in about 1998) has a dot
pitch about four times as fine, which would be more than enough.
November 14, 2004 10:30:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

On 12 Nov 2004 20:21:43 -0800, paul-NOZPAM@paulkienitz.net (Paul
Kienitz) wrote:

>Do you think it might be possible someday to sell a smallish
>tabletop-size DLP projection TV at competitive prices, or will that
>technology not scale down cheaply enough? A micromirror projection
>system would certainly have advantages over CRTs in the sub-30" sizes,
>if it could be cheap enough...
>
>One thing I don't like about my Samsung CRT, besides its ponderosity,
>is the rayther large dot pitch. With projection, dots don't need to
>be pitched...


I'd suspect LCD and Plasma sets will come down in price and obsolete
everything else. Look what LCD is doing to the computer monitor
business.
Anonymous
November 15, 2004 1:58:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

*** wrote in message news:<nk8gp0h0rf8qkudns0usvu6rofobe4hdi3@4ax.com>...

> I'd suspect LCD and Plasma sets will come down in price and obsolete
> everything else. Look what LCD is doing to the computer monitor
> business.

My suspicion is that projection will always be able to underprice plasma.
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 1:59:47 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Pardon my off the wall response.

It is strange to me to think about rear projection TVs compared to direct
view CRTs. Strange because the concept is so strikingly similar, even
direct view CRTs are basically a rear projection electron gun TV. The image
is projected from the rear of the tube onto the front surface that you look
at, weird.

Maybe if engineers look at rear projection DLP or LCD with old CRT tech in
mind they can make sort of a hybrid that uses an active front panel (similar
in function to the phosphor on the CRT glass) to create more vivid color and
blacker blacks. Blah blah blah.

--Dan
Anonymous
November 16, 2004 12:26:36 PM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> ... Strange because the concept is so strikingly similar, even
> direct view CRTs are basically a rear projection electron gun TV. The image
> is projected from the rear of the tube onto the front surface that you look
> at, weird.

Dan,

Err, with a rear projection TV you are correct in that an image is
formed and that image is projected onto a (larger) screen. You are not
correct in suggesting that this is the case in a CRT TV. In a CRT set
electrons are streamed to the "screen" or front of the tube and
phosphors are excited to create an image ON the screen.
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 12:33:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I don't think you read my post well enough.

--Dan

"SaltiDawg" <saltidawgNOSPAM@users.sourceforge.net> wrote in message
news:419a0e1a@news101.his.com...
> Err, with a rear projection TV you are correct in that an image is
> formed and that image is projected onto a (larger) screen. You are not
> correct in suggesting that this is the case in a CRT TV. In a CRT set
> electrons are streamed to the "screen" or front of the tube and
> phosphors are excited to create an image ON the screen.
>
Anonymous
November 20, 2004 12:33:37 AM

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:

> I don't think you read my post well enough.

Oh, I read it well enough. ;-)
!