Mitsubishi's laser HDTV to debut - Page 2

Aren't D-ILA, SXRD and LCOS all similar versions of the same methodology? Or more to the point, aren't D-ILA and SXRD versions of LCOS? So, if you have it for one, you have it for all 3?

So, videobruce, why do you care? Did SXRD harm you or your family in some way?

Personally, I find all of this exciting. I like the look of my new SXRD, but I am really interested in things like these LASER based systems, SED's and CNT. Even OLD's have promise, but may be a non-starter if SED's or CNT can be close economically, due to OLD's short lifespan.

Keith

P.S. I see these LED based systems as a stop gap, only. The only thing that would sustain them, is if they can really boost the output to near where the bulbs are today for the larger screens.

I'm still wondering if the black levels will be that much better. I understand you can vary the intensity of the laser, but think of the classic candle in a pitch black room image. The flame needs to be very bright, but the rest of the image should be nearly black, you can't do both very well by attenuating the intensity of the beam.

Now, if they are implementing the laser in a pulse fashion, where one pulse is reflected off of a corresponding mirror in the DMD, then you are talking better than CRT black levels, but the optics would have to be very precise and the pulse speed would have to be ridiculously fast, not to mention the need to realign the laser the to get the correct reflection path off of the DMD.

My guess is the former approach is the one being implemented - I just wonder what the maximum CR is that is attainable utilizing that method.

[EDIT] Of course, if the refresh speed is fast enough, this may actually work pretty well since you can generate an all black field. THAT makes more sense...I wasn't thinking in terms of fields displayed per period of time initially. [/EDIT]

That sounds great if it is true....but so far all I have seen is marketing hype calling LED's a Laser, so we shall see when the real McCoy gets here. I hope it is true, and it is real laser technology, and simply not re-naming of the LED.

The (technological) difference between lasers and LEDs is not a matter of opinion. It is scientific fact. If you come across corporate advertising that purports one to be the other, I, for one would appreciate that information, and the offending parties names, being posted on this forum. I'll try to find a link for the technical aspects of LED light sourcing, and post it here. In the meantime, here is the Novalux link again. The two items, (LED and laser) are not the same. Anyone who tries to tell you that laser is re-badged LED, frankly, doesn't know what they are talking about.

The term LED can be thought of a general term for a light emitting semiconductor while the semiconductor lasers are frequent called 'laser LEDs" (i.e., one specific type of LED). At this point it's really not clear that Mits is using something different from the other DLP manufacturers that have announced plans to begin shipping LED illuminated DLP projectors this year. In one press report form CES 2006 the Samsung DLP (or perhaps is was the HP DLP) was described as using laser LEDs as the light source. IF we are really talking about non-laser LED for the 2006 Samsung and HP models vs. an actual laser light source for the 2007 Mits, then the main difference would probably be one of efficiency (since the output of the laser is inherently focused and the light engine can be designed to have very little light spill beyond the edges of the DMD chip). As for black level improvements, both conventional LEDs and semiconductor lasers are capable of being switched on and off very fast and there is no inherent advantage for either type of light source. There was some indication that HP for their LED illuminated DLP might be implementing the equivalent of an auto iris but instead of an inherently slow electro-mechnanical iris they would dynamically control the illumination of the DMD perhaps as fast as on a frame-by-frame basis. Remember that the LEDs in these DLPs are being switched on and off at 48 times per frame instead of having a rotating color wheel that projects each color 5 times per frame. This fast rate should eliminate the rainbow effect. To add a psuedo auto iris would only require additional signal processing.

Ron Jones

A candle is not that bright even in a dark room.

Ron Jones wrote "To add a psuedo auto iris would only require additional signal processing."
I say : I don´t care since I am not doing that processing. It is easier to think about using a variable output laser as a auto iris with a 3LCD or 3LCOS design.

Somewhat to that point is the example pointed to below of the importance of "local contrast." Believe it or not, the diamond shapes market 1 & 2 are exactly the same shade of gray in the figure on the left:

http://www.veritasetvisus.com/images...20can%20be.pdf

In any event this is a mind bending example of how the human visual system can work.

First, as Ohlson pointed out and my previous post showed a related example, it is about relative/local contrast.

Second, lasers are much more than just another kind of light source. They effectively have near zero etendue. This can be used to greatly help contrast in multiple ways. The most obvious of which is that the projection optics can go to higher F-numbers which will lead to higher contrast optics.

It also means that the illumination angles going to the microdisplay are tighter which will help contrast, this will be particularly important for LCOS devices due to the way the LC works. You may notice that the Sony SXRD has higher measured contrast (by reviewers not just Sony) when the Iris is stopped down; with a laser it is like the iris is stopped way down yet all the light gets through so the contrast goes up without having to stop down the iris.

Then as others have noted there is the ability to adjust the intensity of the laser with more control than with an iris and the additional ability to iris the colors individually (maybe some fun computations to make to have this work).



It doesn't work like this, they will spread the laser beam out to illuminat the whole array of mirrors. The better contrast will come from using higher F-number optics. The good news is that because the laser beam is spread out over 2-million pixels and not a tight focused beam, it is very safe for human vision.

For what it is worth (trying to quickly summarize some points I have made in other topics), I think it is very clear technically that LCOS stands much more to gain from Lasers than DLP does. Lasers have polarized light and color separated light which is good for 3-panel LCOS. But perhaps the biggest advantage is that while lasers can be pulse, most of them will output more light energy in a continous mode and thus are much more cost effective when use to illuminate 3 panels where LCOS devices are much more cost effective.

Per Ohlson's point earlier, it is a bit surprising that there has not been a LCOS based Laser announcement, but I would be very surprised if they did not hit the market in the same time frame as DLP and HTPS (Epson) laser based products.

What about LED driven lasers? They are both LED and lasers!
(btw, the acronym, LASER, has been accepted into the lexicon as a word, laser, thus capitalization is not necessary any more.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser

Good link. I remember seeing this in college.

Give me a break Fine, does a mag lite in a haunted house work better for you? How about a xenon headlamp on a dark road? A supernova in space? The above post says it all - it's all about contrast gradient and these are very far apart on the gradient - even a candle in a dark room, Ohlson.

Ever heard the term it's all relative??

Did I not draw this conclusion in the next paragraph I wrote? While I am sure you are correct in the implementation, there is theoretically nothing that would prevent what I wrote from being a possible option. Now, as I mentioned, the computations and tolerances may make it impossible in today's world, but the premise is sound.

Better examples Uther
However dlp hardly lacks contrast in a scene like the ones you mentioned.

Either you illuminate a SLM such as a dmd or lcos panels with laser illumination or you go to a direct scanning approach like Microvision.

Debates are kewl....Anyway, when the "real" laser TV gets here, of course I want to see it. The really nice thing is, about every six months (12 months for each separate company), revisions and improvements continue to come along.

You don't have to be "harmed" not to like or in this case detest something or someone. Status symbols are just that.

I do not perceive JVC d-ila as cheap for the common man and sxrd just for videots with too much money burning holes in their pocket. I have had high hopes for JVC and d-ila for a long time. JVC has studies laser illumiation and d-ila since many years for digital cinema but nothing has happened.

On friday a select few will be able to view this laser TV.

First time on this thread, very interesting info. I currentlt have a 42311 Mitts 2001 model and was thinking of getting the Samsung 56' LED but this has got me thinking again. I think Mitts. has put out some great quality products so I may wait and see what develops with this new laser technology!

My point was that you just seemed to be really against the technology, without much cause. If you think the Sony SXRD's are status symbols, or perhaps just Sony itself, that is your prerogative.

I do know that I compared the Sony 60" and the HP 65" and it came down to the quality as reported by the persons in these forums. These weren't the only sets that I compared, just the final two.

But back to the main topic flow, here is a site that produces LEDs for RPTV's:

Goldeneye Link


Keith

I heard the lasers are immersed in a tank of water in this new Mits RPTV, firmly affixed to a shark's head .

...oops, I thought this was Slashdot for a moment...

Ahh, another technology for us all to argue about and pick apart for awhile...

I can see the 10,000 posts now..."Do I get a DLP/SXRD/LCD or wait for new Mitsu Laser?"

What a time we live in, we have TV's readily available today that we drooled about only a few years back...and yet more is coming....whatever you buy, you will be undoubtedly happy...

You are right and the 10001st post will be the conclusion that it doesn't matter with our terrible cable or Directv HD-Lite anyway.

Sergio

The analogy I like is the "automobile" before the industry settled on a standard steering device -- the "steering wheel". Once you discover the steering wheel then Henry will be along to make sure we all can afford a "car". I love tech turmoil.

Guys, I saw the prototype of this unit in the special room Mitsubishi had set up (NON CES) and it was incredible...they were then talking about late December early January.....

Do you mean Dec '06/Jan '07, or a year later?

Also, is there any feeling about how large these can/will be made? Can they go up to 90" or 100"?

Since lasers don't spread, it would seem that one could multiple passes of the light and come up with a very narrow rear projection set (e.g., something Infocus tried with their 'thin' dlp set) that looses no brightness or sharpness--which would then allow one to have very large sets (~100")that are still </= ~ 15" or so deep.

I'm not against the technology by far. Out of the three players, LCoS by far has the most promise until SED shows. The "status symbol" is in the name; Sony. If it was under some other name, it wouldn't be any more a deal as any other product. Many people buy it for just name reconition (notice I did say "many"). Period. "It's just a Sony" is more like it.

On a more related point here is another blurb on these sets from TV Technology with reference to the original article;

http://www.tvtechnology.com/hd_notebook/one.php?id=708
Yep.
I especially love this part; "yet another dazzling techno-carrot and tempts you to wait just a tiny bit longer."

They showed a 62 inch tv that was about 7 inches deep. Don't know about addition screen sizes. Late 06 early 07 from what I know...going to the dealer line show in California this weekend starts Friday. Will post more later.

Sounds good. Take some pics if possible. I'm just wondering what the price point is going to be and what sizes they are going to make. Although, i wonder if we'll hear anything at all in that respect this year.

Any news from the Mitsu show?

Sergio

The hell with lasers. Lets get the basics down first:
Any news when Mits will design a real 1080p display first?
Last year Mitsubishi's had their public relations firm "do their lying" for them by stating that their 1080p displays would accept 1080p inputs. Ultimate AV documents their clever red herring:
"The set can receive 1080p/24 and 1080p/30 broadcasts (two of the ATSC broadcast formats, currently unused and unlikely to be). It can also accept these formats via its IEEE 1394 inputs (though it's unlikely we'll ever see programming at these resolutions over such a link). These 1080p formats, should they ever become available, are, however, converted to by the set 1080i (insert: pure crap design) for other processing (such as PIP, color adjustments, etc.) then converted back to 1080p prior to being displayed. Bottom line: the Mitsubishi will not accept 1080p sources via component or HDMI, and in any case provides no direct route for any1080p source directly to the display. This limitation is true for most of the 1080p sets presently on the market."
http://www.guidetohometheater.com/r...iontvs/206mits/

To make matters worse some of these Mitsubishi displays (among many others) will not decode a 1080i signal into 1080 lines. Instead they throw away 50% of the information and end displaying 540 lines of the 1080!

Why should anyone care about lasers given Mits most basic and current performance limitations?