Blur Busters Forums

Posted: **17 Jan 2016, 12:03**

Would it not be a lot easier to use a DLP projector with a laser light source and black frame insertion?
It sounds like there are a lot of challenges with a scanning laser that were not present with CRTs, since you're having to physically move something to direct the laser light.

Posted: **17 Jan 2016, 13:45**

Glide wrote:Would it not be a lot easier to use a DLP projector with a laser light source and black frame insertion?
It sounds like there are a lot of challenges with a scanning laser that were not present with CRTs, since you're having to physically move something to direct the laser light.

Way to miss the whole point the whole point of this project
Laser DLP's already exist(in high end projectors) so that would be completely pointless

The appeal to this whole thing is to finally have a worthy CRT successor

Posted: **18 Jan 2016, 04:53**

RLBURNSIDE wrote:
thatoneguy wrote:
RLBURNSIDE wrote:*snip*
This is all a non-issue if you could somehow pack lasers in a display
Doesn't have to be a projector for this tech to catch on it could be used on TV's/Computer Monitors

If anything flicker is more of an issue since most people can't stand it and most of them run their TV's at a lowly 60hz so they're bound to see a lot of flicker and complain
Well, the title of this thread is "laser projectors general", although rear projection could be considered similar to a traditional TV or monitor.

I agree about low refresh rates and scanned displays, I used to hate 60hz flicker on CRTs and wouldn't even consider using one lower than 72hz, 85+ ideally.

But running at 120hz would be great for a raster display, since it's a common multiple of 24, 30, and 60, and would result in pretty low lag and latency, plus it's easy to simply repeat frames to maintain the cadence of the original material.

Even if you enjoy frame interpolation (like I do) on movies, if you had, say, a 72hz or 120hz display instead of a 60hz one, and was watching lowly 24p movies interpolated, then the quality of the interpolation would be better for the simple fact that there's no cadence mismatch and you only see 2/3 or 4/5 of the frames are interpolated, with 1/3 or 1/5 being the original. That said, you'd still have to reduce the motion blur quite significantly in the "key" frames. Super fast frame rate with blurry frames looks the same, just a slightly smoother blur. That's actually the purpose of motion blur caked into the frames of 24p movies, it's to mask the low framerate. As soon as you run a higher framerate you need to first de-blur, then interpolate the sharper keyframes. And deblurring is a tough problem. It can be done but not perfectly.

I don't think this project makes sense at computer monitor sizes, personally. Especially not when OLED PC monitors are out now and prices will inevitably come down.

Do you use SVP for motion interpolation? What do you use for video deblurring? That's a great idea, i never thought about deblurring smudged frames to get the full benefit of motion interpolation.

Posted: **18 Jan 2016, 11:48**

thatoneguy wrote:
Glide wrote:Would it not be a lot easier to use a DLP projector with a laser light source and black frame insertion?
It sounds like there are a lot of challenges with a scanning laser that were not present with CRTs, since you're having to physically move something to direct the laser light.

Way to miss the whole point the whole point of this project
Laser DLP's already exist(in high end projectors) so that would be completely pointless

The appeal to this whole thing is to finally have a worthy CRT successor

I'm not missing the point, it just sounds like there are some serious limitations to these scanning laser projectors right now, from reading RLBURNSIDE's post and the blog posts linked in it.

Since the scanning is performed by a physically moving mirror, instead of electro-magnetic deflection in a CRT, it follows a sine-wave pattern which has variable speed and does not correlate well with the type of images that we're trying to display, unlike the straight raster scan of a CRT.
With a CRT the retrace is can be significantly faster than the scanning rate, while the retrace is the same speed as the scanning rate with a scanning laser projector - which is why some laser projectors have tried using bidirectional scanning.

I would, of course really like to see a scanning laser projector that is capable of matching or exceeding CRT performance, but it sounds like it is going to be a long time before that happens. These things aren't even resolving 720p.

With the new 4K DLP chips that were just announced, you could have a laser-illuminated display with very fast switching times, and if it's possible to combine that with dark frame insertion - which is something I've yet to see on a DLP display - that may be the best option available in the near future, other than OLED displays.

Posted: **18 Jan 2016, 20:00**

I adjusted the Beam Spreader Lenses and I found that the focus is insanely sharp once the Beam Spreader Lenses are set correctly. The focus is 100%.

The other factor as to why it seems fuzzy is because of the plastic lens on the Sony,Celluron.
Remove it.

The Showwx+ didn't have one.
I mentioned why on the previous page.

Glide wrote:These things aren't even resolving 720p.

Yes, yes it does. Remove the plastic lens. Refocus the B.S.L.'s in front of the laser diodes.It resolves 720p.

Glide wrote:Would it not be a lot easier to use a DLP projector with a laser light source and black frame insertion?

Glide wrote:you could have a laser-illuminated display with very fast switching times, and if it's possible to combine that with dark frame insertion - which is something I've yet to see on a DLP display - that may be the best option available in the near future, other than OLED displays.

DLP is definitely unsuitable due to the power consumed in moving many mirrors and the fact DLP has a larger gap between pixels than LCD which causes major diffraction issues with small pixels.

Laser Beam Scanning (L.B.S.) has no 'pixel gap' whatsoever.
And LBS has no need for a black frame because it is already blur free with zero lag.

RLBURNSIDE wrote:
I was also considering buying a Sony projector and replacing the lasers with more powerful ones, but I have to ask, why stop with just changing the wavelength of the lasers to expand the gamut? Or even using ND filters to short circuit their detectors?

Just use a step up transformer and higher powered lasers with the same output signal and you're done.

I originally tried that route but it did not work. The higher output lasers had to be able to modulate very rapidly on and off. None of the higher mW lasers on the market currently by Osram or any other company filled the bill.

RLBURNSIDE wrote:Personally I think your screen solving the speckle issue is solving an already more or less solved problem

No it isn't.
Let me explain.
There are 2 despekcle methods used in the Sony.
1. Using the same wavelength lasers (Which I am not)
2. Spreading the beam before the optics and letting most of the beam 'spill off' and then focusing it back down. (Which I 'fixed' to acheive better focus at the cost of speckle.)

My screen works on the Showwx+ and the Sony. My Sony monitor now has the same speckle as my Showwx+ but it also has a wider gamut and better blacks with no artifacts.

Posted: **19 Jan 2016, 15:49**

Glide wrote:*snip*

Are you trolling...or are you just retarded?
How about reading the goddamn thread from start to finish before you post?

Suggesting BFI on a forum that is based around gaming is absolutely ludicrous(hello input lag)

And I already told you...Laser DLP's are already a thing and they will become more affordable for consumers in the coming years if that's what you want
It's nothing special...what you're asking for is basically just a brighter DLP which sounds retarded in the first place and I'm not sure why you would think that's exciting but...ok

Laser Beam Scanning on the other hand is Improved CRT with Lasers(well not technically but it's pretty much a CRT successor)...too bad it will suffer the same fate as SED/FED did...and to my knowledge no major company has been paying attention to it(probably because they have way too much stock on OLED at this point) which is a shame

Posted: **19 Jan 2016, 16:11**

thatoneguy wrote:
Glide wrote:*snip*
Are you trolling...or are you just retarded?
How about reading the goddamn thread from start to finish before you post?

Suggesting BFI on a forum that is based around gaming is absolutely ludicrous

Posted: **19 Jan 2016, 17:06**

let's try to keep it civil here. I don't think anyone here is trolling or stupid. Patient and polite responses go a long way.

Posted: **19 Jan 2016, 17:20**

thatoneguy wrote:Laser Beam Scanning on the other hand is Improved CRT with Lasers(well not technically but it's pretty much a CRT successor)...too bad it will suffer the same fate as SED/FED did...and to my knowledge no major company has been paying attention to it(probably because they have way too much stock on OLED at this point) which is a shame

The only thing which is a shame is that lcd was developed for desktop use. If they had just continued with sed or fed after crt we would have great screens right now. But yeah for some reason people like low energy consumption in desktop computers and tv's. They should have developed lcd's for laptops and later mobile phones and leave the desktop and tv's alone. I think oled can really be a great solution for both energy consumption and image quality and they should pursue it now but looking back I think the decision choosing lcd for non-portable devices was a mistake.
Atleast that is my opinion but I know way more people who don't give a crap that their display has low response time, low refresh rate, high input latency and mediocre colour reproduction. And they value the screen way more for that it is thin, large and does not use a lot of energy. I think businesses and other institutions also belong to that group and that is the biggest group there is for the display industry. But the home user, the graphics artists, the movie lovers and gamers really miss out even though a lot of people who belong to this group are probably not even aware of it.

Posted: **20 Jan 2016, 09:31**

Trip wrote: The only thing which is a shame is that lcd was developed for desktop use. If they had just continued with sed or fed after crt we would have great screens right now. But yeah for some reason people like low energy consumption in desktop computers and tv's.

Dude,the industry was shilling LCD way back in 2001
Remember when Windows XP came out and they changed the My Computer Logo from a CRT to a LCD?
There was way too much stock in LCD and they made sure it was going to win no matter what it took

FED as Chief has stated before was never as good as CRT(by all accounts it was better than LCD tho)
SED was supposed to come in the mid 2000s but got stuck in patent purgatory
But both technologies at least got attention from major companies for a while

LBS(which from what I know has potential to be better than both) on the other hand doesn't seem to be getting any attention by any the Industry who is instead hyping OLED,4K and dumb gimmicks like HDR

Blur Busters Forums

Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]

Re: Laser projectors general? [zero lag & zero blur!!!]