Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: DLP Proyectors

This is topic DLP Proyectors in forum Digital Cinema Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=16;t=000141

Posted by Angel Hultzsch (Member # 1058) on 08-05-2002, 07:41 PM:

Hello, im interested in your opinion about the digital projector system.

Bye.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-05-2002, 08:48 PM:

It's ok for screen ads, but for the real thing such as a movie, it leaves alot to be desired.

There are many topics about DLP on FT, and they are very specific about their short comings. So far, these short comings grossly out-weigh the advantages by a significant margin.

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 08-05-2002, 10:53 PM:

There are different varieties of DLP projectors, ranging from tabletop devices designed for computer presentations to the theatre models that are often discussed here.

Even the best DLP machines are "not there yet" as a replacement for film. On the other hand, they're amazingly good big-screen video projectors for non-film-originated material...probably the best video projectors on the market.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-06-2002, 03:11 AM:

DLP SUCKS.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-06-2002, 05:13 PM:

Actually DLP is quite obsolete and far too complicated. ILA is the better system now and the optical path is far simplified fomr DLP stuff. I guess there will alwuys be a place for DLP projectors out there but don't expect much in the line of image quality, or very good "Film Look" to them.
Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 08-06-2002, 05:36 PM:

"Digital Projection" (or the correct term, video projection) has a few problems.

The current systems do not offer images as sharp as 35mm film. The systems hardly even match the HDTV 1080 spec either; DLP falls far short at a miserable 1280 X 1024 resolution. Video systems must be 2 to 4 times sharper to equal 35mm quality, as well as be above home HDTV system quality to guarantee theater operators a continued technical advantage over home theater systems regardless of whether they are projecting film or video. Right now that is dangerously not the case. A very bad business model.

Adding to the bad business model is the high cost and complicated nature of all theatrical video projection systems. It does not fit into the current environment where often less-than-very-high-skilled operators are running the show. Running a flaw free film showing does demand some talent, but the video projection systems are far more complicated than they need to be. The video systems will never be widely adopted by commercial theaters without a great degree of simplification in the systems.

Posted by Paul Linfesty (Member # 214) on 08-06-2002, 05:59 PM:

Bobby Henderson wrote:

quote:
"Digital Projection" (or the correct term, video projection) has a few problems.

Steve Krauss supplied an excellent reason why the DLP projection system is legitimately referred to as a digital system in another post.

Bobby Henderson also wrote:

quote:
It does not fit into the current environment where often less-than-very-high-skilled operators are running the show.

One could also argue current 35mm equipment doesn't fit in an environment where less-than-skilled operators are running the show. In actuality, as long as everything is running correctly. digital projection is easier (and mostly hands-off) to run than 35mm projection. And when things break down, a tech needs to be sent in, but that is also the case with the many poorly trained, inexperienced "operators" who have taken over too many film booths today.

Posted by Darryl Spicer (Member # 711) on 08-06-2002, 10:04 PM:

It still all boils down to the bottom line. I have said this before in other posts. The heart of a 35mm projector is the intermittent. The heart of a DLP is the three mirror configuration.

If the heart goes out on a 35mm projector the cost can range around $1500 dollars

If the heart of a DLP goes out you could bee looking at $50,000 plus dollars to replace them.

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-07-2002, 05:19 AM:

And I've said this in other posts -- NO ONE at Texas Instruments is saying how the nano-mirrors die. I'll lay odds that they don't just fail all at once. If other pixilated digital displays are any indication, those nano-mirrors will die a few at a time. Pretty soon you have little color or black or white specks dotting the whole screen. It won't be a pretty site and I will take flecks of dirt on film that last 1/24th of a second than specks of light that stay on CONSTANTLY through the entire DLP presentation. And how long do the little mirrors retain their reflective quality when they have had 7000w of radiant energy blasting at them for hours on end? Will they dull, will they not turn on and off quite as fast? We know what DLP looks like out of the box. I want to know what it will look like 2, 3 years from initial setup.

Come on, TI, tell us how this thing gives up the ghost! And when it finally does, will the Mr. Exhibitor, who doesn't want to replace the $1200 xenon bulb until you can barely see an image on the screen, will he be racing to replace the nano-mirror module at $50,000 a pop before the screen looks like you are watching the image through a curtain of "a thousand points of light?" heh heh.....don't make me laugh.

Also, what is Mr. Exhibitor, who balks at paying a technican (who is usually somewhere within driving distance to the theatre and who can get there that day) $35 per hour to replace that intermittant, what's he going to do when he finds out the DLP mirror module has to be replaced, tested and aligned by the certified TI "specialist" who gets $250 and hour -- plus airfare from Texas -- that is if you can get an appointment with one of the handful of tech who can actually do this kind of work? Anyone have a cardio-shock unit handy?

I pity the fool who invests a penny in this technology in its current state.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 08-07-2002, 11:02 PM:

Frank,
I totally agree with you. The panels are going to die pixel by pixel, or perhaops in groups just like anything else with that sort of build structure. Just remember too that the panels can be fried as well if someone forgets to turn on the exhaust blower, etc. Apparently, this happened to a unit up north(I can't give you the longitude and lattitude, that is confidential). This whole Digital Cinema thing is about 20 years too soon. It reminds me alot of the Edsal for many reasons. The fist being that no one bought them, then the best being that the Edsal disappeared completely.
MArk

Posted by David Rigby (Member # 1301) on 08-08-2002, 04:06 AM:

So would frying the DLP chip be a firing offence (or perhaps just a redundancy one

It's amazing that they're that easy to fry considering the expense - you'd expect there'd be all kinds of safety interlocks in there to prevent operation without adequate cooling.

David

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 08-08-2002, 04:22 AM:

There probably are -- I would imagine, and just guessin here, that they could build in very accurate thermal sensors that will kill the light source if unsafe thresholds are reached. Obviously something this expensive would have to have redundency anfer redundency in safety protocols that take any reliance on human attentiveness out of the equation. But that all relates to catastrophic events. The really intreguing question for me is, what does the thing do under SAFE conditions, under month in and month out use? I've never seen THAT discussed in any of the glowing trade stories about this system.

Frank

PS -- Do you think the module looks similar to what a frame of film looks like when it gets caught in the aperture....only in pixilated form? hehe.

Posted by Paul G. Thompson (Member # 655) on 08-08-2002, 05:02 AM:

I think DLP is years away from duplicating the quality 35mm film. The DLP experts have been screwing around with this technology for the better part of 30 years, and they are still in the dark ages.

As far as 70mm is concerned, it will take many more years before that is duplicated, if it could be duplicated at all.

When I watched the screening of a DLP presentation at Sho-West, I was not impressed. As I think about it, a 16mm print blown up on a 35 foot width screen looked almost as good as the DLP presentation I saw.

35mm Rules!!!!!
70mm Really Rules!!!!!!!
DLP Eats rottin' apples.

Eventually, DLP of some sort will be successful. But when is anyone's guess. I don't think I will ever see that day when it will be.

Posted by John Pytlak (Member # 331) on 08-08-2002, 09:38 AM:

A few years ago, TI published a series of "white papers" on DLP reliability. Not sure if there is anything more recent that publicly details experience in high powered theatre applications.

Perhaps someone from TI, Barco, Christie, or NEC could provide reference to more recent data?

"Dead Pixels" are a known issue in CCD sensors. One-in-a-million failure rates do add up over time in megapixel arrays. Assume same would apply to millions of moving mirrors modulating intense radiant energy.

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion