AVS Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
301 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I just recieved my copy of Stereophiles Guide To Hometheater. It previews this years CES show with a couple of products that were shown at another show, CEATEC.


I will just quote the paragraph on the Sony: "However the best picture I saw was from Sony's new Grating Light Valve projector, which was demonstrated in a light-controlled theater on the show floor. This technology uses red, green, and, blue lasers that each diffract from a vertical array of microscopic ribbon mirrors. These mirrors can be deformed to alter their characteristics, performing like a deffraction grating. Asthe differacted light changes, it's scanned across the screen by reflecting from a rotating mirror. The result is a picture with a resolution of 1920x1080 and a color palette more than twice that of CRT's. The picture I saw was exceptional with deep blacks, superb color saturation, and exquisite detail.


Sounds like Sony is trying to rule the universe with this new technology. I am very anxious to read all the reports, and hopefully some pictures, from those that attend this years CES.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
892 Posts
Question is:When will we see a pj using this technology made available to the general public,and how much of my savings will this cost being that it will be an emerging technology?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,092 Posts
Zeiss currently has a tricolor laser projector called the ZULIP.


It is only $500,000 if you want it. Great picture quality I might add.


-Mr. Wigggles
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
I think I can stick with the current pj generation till death of a lamp in a couple of years and then just throw it all away and buy a new, cheap and sweet piece of technology.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
To my knowledge Sony is 3-5 years away from releasing it. We will see prototypes from now till then.


I've read a lot about this technology as well & it does sound promising but...there's a BIG but in the phrase..this will probably come with consequences. I'll bet they don't license this technology out to anyone else just like they did with the Beta-max & charge a fortune for it! Then, the'll think that it is the best thing since sliced bread & wait for orders to come in at what? About $40,000++++? And by the time they get enough money back for the R&D it will be years more before we see a reasonable price tag for the average joe like you & I & by then DLP & D-ILA will be so far ahead that we probably won't need this new thing they're calling "GLV".


Plus, if you look at JVC's road-map (I'm sure someone can post a link to it I don't have it handy at the moment) their 1920x1080 panels are on the horizon my friends! Also, I just heard from the grapevine that TI has just introduced a DLP prototype that DOES 1920x1080 as well & I hope they have one at the CES show! It was early in the year when I posted that Sony will be displaying this GLV prototype at the CES show & many doubted me and now my words are coming true because Sony WILL display this technology. Wouldn't it be something if TI & JVC had theirs there as well? Now THAT would be a show I'd PAY for! Who knows though, I'll bet that JVC does display theirs & if that is the case I'm sure TI knows all about it & they sure know about Sony's GLV being there so they may have something up their sleeve too! Can't wait!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,772 Posts
Also, another issue could be the use of mechanically moving parts in the optical path/ imaging system- can anyone say "DLP rainbows"?


With 1080p LCOS/DilA and LCD's coming down the pike, probably in less than 12 months for the HT market, I think the wants of many HT enthusiasts will be met very soon with proven, mature technologies.


Basically, 1920x1080 LCD projector technology will require no new manufacturing techniques or other technology. The reason is that 1600x1200 LCD projectors have been around for years, and many forum members own late model digital projectors with this resolution.


1600x1200 = 1,920,000 pixels (about 2 Megapixels)


1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels (about 2 Megapixels)


a difference of only 153,600 pixels, or 7.4%.


Exchange a few rows for columns from a 1600x1200 panel to make a 1920x1080 panel, and you're there (and add a few more coulmns to make up the ~7% deficit- only about 67 pixels wide on the left and right of the image).


The point is, to a PJ manufacturer, panel yields are proportional to total number of pixels on the panel(s)- the exact arrangement (aspect ratio) doesn't matter (so much).


So, PJ makers have been making 2 Megapixel-class PJ's for years (1600x1200 models). There is no significantly new mfg process that needs to be developed for 1080p LCD panels (or DILA, assuming 1600x1200 Dilas have been around for a while).


Given Sony's track record with Beta, Minidisk, and service policies on the 1xHT projectors, I wouldn't hold my breath...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,772 Posts
Another point in favor of bulb-based projectors is all the work being done to develop LED based bulbs or bulb arrays.


Once these are perfected (color temperature, cost reduced), the extreme long life of LED bulbs and ability to adjust color temperature to compensate for aging effects or room/screen environment, will make LED based projectors the price/performance champs (unless traditional bulb technologies get more efficient, longer life, and cheaper, too).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
565 Posts
Does anyone know if Sony is likely to show their GLV technology in a booth available to the general public? Or will it be hidden away in a back room somewhere?


JVC usually shows their good new stuff to everyone at shows they attend.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,445 Posts
I have read that GLV easily could do 8 megapixels of resolution. There should be a potential to make products using this technology at a reasonable price since it is essentially one-dimensional. It should be easier to producer a couple of thousand vertical pixel producing elements than producing millions of pixels on a 2d-panel.


Their two greatest obstacles are likely the arrival of long life and cheap semiconductor lasers and to produce a fine enough aluminum reflective layer. The difficulty in producing a smooth reflective layer is what is limiting contrast at this stage in development.


What I love about GLV is its flexibility in producing varying aspect ratios.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Isn't technology great ? Just when I was feeling queasy about the falling value of my 8-month old HD-1 based Z9000U, (due to the HD-2 release), I find out that the HD-2 is going to be obsolete before the end of 2003. Like stain, I think I'm going to wait a couple years until my bulb burns out and then tell my wife it fell off the ceiling so I can buy my new 1080p machine for $ 1000. I can't hardly wait.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,999 Posts
I'd much rather see and affordable Laser-CRT than this solution. Call me crazy (because I am at times) but the idea of 2000x1500 right off the bat sounds enticing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
387 Posts
Resolution is all well and good but what's the point if there is no software to take full advantage of it?


Contrast, lumen output and color saturation are all much more important than pure resolution, IMHO.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,999 Posts
Quote:
Originally posted by Kimmo Jaskari
Resolution is all well and good but what's the point if there is no software to take full advantage of it?

Contrast, lumen output and color saturation are all much more important than pure resolution, IMHO.
Well, they are quoting a conservative figure for contrast at 2000:1 because of video bandwidth, but the laser-crt is capable of 10,000:1. Is this good enough for you?


The lumen output is also placed at 10,000. Maybe not bright enough? :p Then there is the color saturation question, but considering you are getting three pure monochromatic light sources at 620, 520, and 460 nm, I would think that between the contrast and brightness ranges available saturation would terrific.


Keep in mind that when a given pixel isn't required to have a lit color no light output for that pixel is generated. This is the same idea as in conventional CRTs. In DLP, LCOS, and LCD all pixels are always lit whether you want them to be or not.

Here is a white paper. Still in the early stages like the Sony solution, but to me its just as interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,772 Posts
Greater than 1920x1080p resolutions will have no practical purpose for HT use until material is shot with cameras capable of exceeding this resolution. As of today, true 1080p/24 cameras are still extremely new and basically experimental. Yes, Lucas used them for Episode 2, and probably will for Episode 3, but the entire exercise is still considered developmental.


One could argue that higher-res telecines from 35mm or Imax films could achieve higher than 1920x1080p, but what's the point for home theater use? Unless you have a screen substantially larger than 10 feet wide, most normal humans (avsforum members don't count ;) ) will *never notice* greater than 1080p resolution (on screens less than ~10-ft wide). I use "normal humans" as a test whether a change in my HT- audio or video- is worth it. They immediately recognize HD vs DVD, and analog cable/OTA vs SD digital or DVD.


re: "Resolution is all well and good but what's the point if there is no software to take full advantage of it?

Contrast, lumen output and color saturation are all much more important than pure resolution, IMHO. "


Well said.


Simply put, the color resolution of DVD stinks. ATSC HDTV remedies this with far better color resolution and color depth. The higher spatial resolution of ATSC HDTV is icing on the cake, but the 3-dimensionality visitors to my HT see on the PLV60 with OTA HD is due in part to the much greater bit depth and black level resolution of HDTV MPEG2. DVD's on the same setup look flatter by comparision (although it varies widely from DVD to DVD, and I've seen CRT's that look very 3D with DVD, also.)
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,999 Posts
RGB, the beauty is that one is not force to use, or illuminate, the entire panel. :p


One could easily just use 1920x1080 if they wish and know that the unused portion of the laser faceplate is not lit. This also means that th power consumption will drop as the entire panel is not being used, as is the case when less than 10K lumen is required.


Just because the initial rez being developed exceeds today's standards does not mean that will be the case if and when a product is delivered to the market. I also like the fact that the laser's faceplate is estimated at 10-20 Thousand hours of use.


Besides, I could easily use a 2000x1500 resolution for things other than watching movies and television. I would happily enjoy watch a movie in one section and surf the net in the other portion of the screen. I would also find a 2000x1500 computer desktop providing better desktop real estate conditions than my current 1600x1200 monitor.


Curious, RGB, do you not scale 480P DVD content to a higher rez on your projector, or do you keep it at 480P?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,735 Posts
I want this projector now! Watching the great hiper-compressed Dishnetwork picture with this animal should be a wonderful experience.


Just kidding. I agree with the previous post about the lack of software. If we had better cable/satellite or even better DVDs we all would be happy with our Sharp , Marantz and other existing FP.


Sergio
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,525 Posts
Quote:
Greater than 1920x1080p resolutions will have no practical purpose for HT use until material is shot with cameras capable of exceeding this resolution
RGB,


That is not true. Although you can't create additional image information that does not exist in the source, you can make the most of what IS there by upscaling the material to a higher resolution.


Here is a very simple illustration:


This first picture has been kept at it's "native" resolution
http://www.colorfacts.com/colorfacts/images/rez1.jpg


This second picture has been upscaled
http://www.colorfacts.com/colorfacts/images/rez2.jpg


Both images have been fed the same "source material"! Clearly there is a difference.


Of course, even the second picture does not look as good as it could if had a higher quality source to begin with, but it is incorrect to say that a higher resolution does not benefit a lower resolution source.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,273 Posts
Mark,


thanks for that example, it is clearly better.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,772 Posts
re: "Of course, even the second picture does not look as good as it could if had a higher quality source to begin with, but it is incorrect to say that a higher resolution does not benefit a lower resolution source."


Point taken.


Yes, I have used HTPC's, tweaked ad infinitum since summer 1999, to "scale" DVDs (480p) to an XGA (1024x768) and now WXGA (1360x768).


But what I was really after using a HTPC until Sept 2002 was the digital domain *deinterlacing*. The scaling was nice, too with the GeForce's, GeForce2 Ultras, and Radeons of their day, and achieving pixel perfect timings was a no brainer with the business class projectors in use '99-'01.


Now, with PLV60's, PLV70's, and other current projectors that have highly regarded scalers, all you need is a good deinterlaced 480p output from a progressive DVD player with a Faroudja chip, like a $190 Panny RP82, to achieve scaling results exhibited by milori's example above (with the scaling now done by the PLV60). Reports indicate that the PLV70 has a good deinterlacer onboard, so all you need is a cheap 480i component output from a DVD player to get the one-two punch- good deinterlacing and scaling (pixel perfect timing benefits notwithstanding).


While it is obvious that upscaling low res sources like 480p DVD to 720p, 768p, or higher, to 8ft widescreen dimensions is a Good Thing, upscaling is not an "open-ended" proposition- i.e. if you continue to upscale a given resolution like 480p, there will be a resolution beyond which there is no perceivable improvement in a double blind test (even before reaching a resolution that exceeds human visual acuity).


I guess my opinion is that upscaling 480p DVD any higher than 1920x1080p won't make a significant difference.


And what about scaling 1080p to higher resolutions? For 6-10ft wide screens in most HT's using front projectors, I guess my opinion is that you would then run up against the human visual acuity limit of one arc minute, assuming you sit a normal 1.5-2.0 screen widths from the screen.


One must always qualify these arguments with a screen width/size *and* viewing distance, as ultimately, these spatial resolution arguments must always reduce to the human visual acuity limit. Given a screen width, and viewing distance, one could easily calculate the source resolution beyond which no one with 20-20 vision could resolve (unless you have better than 20-20 vision ;) ).
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top