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.

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

Frank

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.

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