Recently, my old friend, prolific author, and GREAT photographer Rick Sammon stopped by my studio to record two shows for his new Digital Photo Experience podcast channel on iTunes. He got me going on my experiences shooting, editing, and testing the latest hybrid still and video DSLRs, as well as my advice on the best digital projectors for showing off your photos. (Want the best projection image quality for the price? Or want to shorten HD video conversion times from hours to minutes? Listen in here…)

While visiting the Texas Instruments DLP booth at the Infocomm 2009 show, I spotted a computer display running DLP’s Total Cost of Ownership Calculator program. It looked similar to the active online version, so I decided to run an ownership cost analysis between two similar-priced and Lumens-rated projectors, the Infocus IN2104 (2500 lumen claimed brightness) and the Epson Powerlite EMP-1715 (2200 lumens). Before starting, I noticed that the primary data fields in the display program were set to a typical school district’s smart board scenario: buy 100 units, use them for seven years, run them five hours a day, 5 days per week, and 43 weeks per year. I went with that and then selected the model numbers from the dropdown. Next, I hit calculate  and within seconds the display revealed that I would save an incredible $164,000 in only 7 years if I bought the Infocus models. WOW!! That’s three times as much as the original cost of purchasing 100 Epson models! But how on earth could anyone save so much? And why didn’t I have to fill in all the additional fields regarding bulb life, bulb cost, labor cost, etc., before the computer calculated the savings? (Usually, when you don’t fill those in on the TCO online version, windows pop up with suggestions for the amounts to fill in.)

There was obviously something wrong with this display. First, in the final tally and spec windows (upper right corner in the image above), the Powerlite 1715 was replaced by the Powerlite 83+, possibly for reasons that had to do with the discontinued status of the 1715 model. That was harmless enough, but the spec lists showed a Standard Lamp Life of 3000 hours for both the IN2104 projector and the Epson Powerlite 83+, even though Infocus claims 2000 hours in its brochures (with 3000 hours achievable in economy mode). That lamp-life figure is used to predict the cost of lamp replacement over time, so using 3000 hours skews the results in DLP’s favor. Plus, the program automatically tacked on $1,500 per Epson unit for filter cleaning over the seven year period, $32 each for filters, and the maintenance costs for all 100 Epson projectors. The final came to $153,200! Meanwhile, on the Infocus side, there were no maintenance or filter costs, yet there was a price of $55,000 for the replacement & labor cost of bulbs (based on 3000 hrs per bulb). But that wasn’t right either, as the program failed to tally the cost of bulb replacement and labor for the Epson units. Had it done so, the program would have calculated at least $50,000 higher savings for choosing the Infocus units.

It took some after-hours research to figure out how these final costs were generated, but fortunately I had the online version of the DLP TCO to help me out. For cleaning and replacement cost, it appears the show display program input replacing a filter every 2500 hours, cleaning the filter every 100 hours of use, and labor costs of $20 per hour (to clean only 2 filters per hour). That works out to over $22,000 a year just to clean the filters on 100 projectors!  Perhaps there are some places in the world where dust blows constantly through open classroom or boardrooms, requiring filter cleaning every 100 hours (or once a month in this case). However, there’s no mention of 100 hour intervals between cleanings in the Powerlite 1715c or 83+manuals, despite what the DLP booth rep told me the 100-hour figure was based on. Next, is $20 per hour to clean two 3LCD projector filters per hour a reasonable figure (or a tongue-twister)? Even if the projectors are mounted overhead it only takes a few seconds (or a minute if you’re really working the clock) to clean or even replace a filter. The proof is in the video:

How easy is it to clean or replace a filter in a 3LCD projector? Check out the video.

Meanwhile, you can’t even enter filter costs or labor amounts in those fields on the DLP side of the calculator, since most DLP models boast Filter-Free designs. But the design logic for Filter-Free projectors was built on claims by TI and its DLP partners that their projectors have Sealed Optics that keep out the dust. (I’ve personally sat through dozens of presentations over the last year where the sealed optic feature was touted in DLP projectors, while the need for dust filters in 3LCD projectors was ridiculed for added costs and inconvenience.) However, at this year’s Infocomm show, there wasn’t a single mention of sealed optics in any DLP presentation or literature, and only a vague mention of semi-sealed optics in a press release for a new Mitsubishi DLP projector. And as I wrote this, I could only find one mention of sealed optics on any DLP partner site, and that was Dell’s:

The mystery behind this sudden disappearing act was cleared up at the 3LCD booth. Apparently, Epson challenged Texas Instruments on the fact that it couldn’t find sealed optics in DLP projectors. To support this challenge, a display at the 3LCD booth showed the results from an independent lab’s dust test of DLP projectors. Photos clearly illustrated how dust accumulated on the projector bulb, condensing lens, color wheel, and mirror assemblies (all part of the optical path) as well as the circuit boards within the unit. There were also examples of image degradation caused by dust, as well as data showing that dust accumulation decreases Lumens output significantly and shortens bulb life. Soon after that challenge began, claims for sealed optics disappeared from the DLP website and most other partner  sites.

A few weeks after the show (on July 9, 2009) the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureau (NAD) found that TI was wrong to claim that its DLP projectors contained a sealed optical system, and TI agreed to remove mentions of sealed optics. This is an excerpt from that finding:
“The challenger (Epson) objected to the advertiser’s (TI) claims that its projectors have a completely enclosed optical system, which is sealed in a protective tube from lamp to lens. It also objected to the message that because DLP-based projectors features such a system, they are impenetrable to dust, which results in certain performance and cost of ownership advantages over 3LCD-based projectors. The challenger noted that these claims not only appear in advertising published by the advertiser, but they have also been adopted and widely disseminated by the projector manufacturers that use the technology.

In response to NAD’s inquiry, the advertiser asserted that it has discontinued, and will cease dissemination of, materials with claims concerning or visually depicting DLP-based projectors as completely enclosed and completely sealed as well as completely free from or unaffected by dust.

Further, the advertiser said it will no longer use claims that DLP-based projectors have sealed optics or enclosed optics or are completely free from or unaffected by dust.The advertiser noted that it is in the process of revising its DLP sales brochures and online advertising to reflect these changes, and that these revisions should be completed soon. It also stated that it has permanently discontinued the animation showing how dust affects LCD and DLP projectors, and the portion of the video showing the same, from its Website.”

I don’t like being mislead by false product claims. But what else can you call it? Imagine if Canon or Nikon sold “optically sealed” lenses or compact cameras that easily allowed dust to enter and accumulate? They’d be sued left and right.
Now that we know that DLP projectors are actually semi-sealed and open to dust,  the 10-million dollar question is: How can DLP manufacturers continue to claim that their  ”filter-free” designs provide lower maintenance costs over the life of the projector if dust accumulation shortens bulb life and creates image-quality problems? And how can you come out ahead on Total Cost Of Ownership with minor filter cleaning and replacement cost savings if you shorten bulb life and substantially increase the total cost for new bulbs? (Projector bulbs cost $300-$400 each, dust filters about $12!) It’s not easy, unless you believe the instructions that pop up on the TCO calculator when you fail to input the cost of cleaning labor for 3LCD projectors:

Apparently, there are quite a few purchasing agents in school districts around the country  who do believe that it costs $15-30 an hour to clean two filters per hour, and a few actually based huge (in one case, 2,000 units!) purchases on the results of the TCO calculator (See the DLP Case Studies.) However, given the recent revelation about “sealed-optics” and potential for short lived bulbs (not to mention image quality degradation), I wonder if any of those buyers will be asking for their money back? Or will they still think they got the deal based on yet another questionable cost added to the tally? This one called Color Decay, and described as follows in the TCO Calculator:

When I ran the booth version of the TCO calculator, it added $735 per Epson projector for the repair of LCD panel Color Decay (for a total of $73,500 for 100 units). That’s more to replace faded 3LCD panels than you’d spend on new projectors.  Where did this figure come from? Again, with help from  the online version, I discovered that the $73,500 was based on repairing the LCD panels in every one of those 3LCD projectors after only 2000 hours of use—even before it’s time to replace your first bulb at 3000 hours! Considering the 7525 hours of use in this scenario, that would mean that you’d spend nearly $200 every 2000 hours to repair faded LCD panels. If there was any truth to this repair cost, I can guarantee that thousands of owners of 3LCD projectors would be cursing and swearing at the manufacturers for making and selling defective products. Where is the evidence to support this 2000-hour self destruct sequence, or the extravagent repair costs? The only solid links I found to the existence of Color Decay in modern 3LCD projectors dates back to DLP-sponsored studies done using single-panel LCD projectors in 2002 and 2003. And after a close read, those tests only proved to me that if you ran old-model LCD projectors 24/7 for several months at a time, overheating might damage an LCD panel and not a single-chip DLP imager. If Color Decay does exist in modern 3LCD projectors, then TI should prove it.

By the way, many of the latest 3LCD projectors feature E-TORL lamps with bulb life ranging from 4,000 to 6,000 hours in standard (full) brightness, while the best single-chip DLP models max out at 3,000 hours, with 4000 in low (or ECO) modes. But if you compare those models using the online TCO calculator, or put in reasonable costs for replacing bulbs or cleaning filters with any competitive pair, something odd happens to the results in the TCO calculator. It tells you that you would save $0 if you purchased the 3LCD model, and not a negative number based on the total costs actually calculated on another line. (Also note that bulb replacement is the biggest cost overall.) That’s not fair, is it? If TI wants to keep calling this thing a Total Cost Of Ownership calculator, why doesn’t it work in both directions? Perhaps a better meaning for TCO would be Total Concoction Online.

This year’s Infocomm 2009 Trade Show in Orlando, Florida wasn’t nearly as exciting for me as last year’s show in Las Vegas. I could blame it on the location (Orlando? BOOORING!) and the flattened economy (both obvious contributors to lower attendance). But could it also have been that last year I was a wide-eyed newcomer to a show that tries to cover everything from professional audio equipment to “Minority Report” style display technologies?

This year’s show certainly boasted a greater assortment of thin, large screen TVs, some of which featured high resolution beyond the once leading edge 1080P format (until you see an image on a 6 or 8 Megapixel, 56-inch screen you won’t be able to imagine how gorgeous it looks. But if you have to ask how much it costs, it’s not for you!) Video display wall technology also jumped up several notches, with new LED backlit displays adding color way beyond NTSC standards. And everywhere I turned the big AV players had multiple large screen monitors grouped together to display extremely high resolution (or wide format) photographs, CAD drawings, and art work.


With video walls, you could still see the narrow seams in between monitors if you look closely, but projector displays used a combination software/hardware solution from Scalable Display Technology to seamlessly stitch multiple images into one. I’m still dizzy from the flight simulator walls that showcased this technology, and can’t wait till it becomes more affordable.

Next, there was an abundance of new 3D displays from HDTV manufacturers such as Mitsubishi, and even a few DLP-projector manufacturers. Most of these displays required the use of special glasses to sync the right and left stereo pair images, but using these glasses provided a truly remarkable 3D experience. (Forget using those crappy old paper and plastic 3D glasses, that’s not even close to the new 3D experience.) But the real challenge will be providing enough quality content to convince 3D enabled HDTVs to purchase multiple pairs of 3D glasses. While there are some auto-stereo monitors on the market that don’t need glasses, they’re still too small for home theater use, and the viewing angle is very limited.

Last year there was a lot of hoopla about the arrival of pico projectors, and this year there were more units on display. However, most of the discussion about those small devices centered on slightly increased Lumens ratings, and the entry of LCOS-based imaging engines with LED light source, where where once single-chip DLP and LED ruled. From my perspective, pico projectors don’t offer enough brightness (or overall value) to be commercially competitive with current projectors, whether DLP or 3LCD based. However, I predict we’ll see pico projection technology sneaking into a wide variety of devices in the next year, from minivan ceilings to portable digital cameras (who needs a big LCD monitor when you can project your photos on the floor, wall, or ceiling?)

Predictions for LED lights eventually replacing the current bulbs used in the projectors continued, mostly by the manufacturers of LED (such as Phlatlight) and the DLP camp. But as I mentioned, the Lumens output isn’t yet up to par, even though LED lights do boast much longer life spans on the order of 10,000 to 20,000 hours or more. Last year, I heard a DLP presentation claiming that the upcoming wave of 3-LED-based DLP units would be capable of displaying billions of colors, with as many as 200 trillions someday. I argued that claim, (and might be for several years to come if the same folks who once claimed sealed optics are writing the copy on 3-LED color.) This year, I heard claims for billions of colors in a shipping product at the DLP booth, but the fact is there is no such thing as billions of colors and there never will be. (Color scientists and opticians agree—the human visual system is only capable of discerning about 12 million colors. Perhaps a few of us can see the 16.7 million colors in a top-grade 24-bit monitor or TV, but no one can rightfully claim a display system with billions or trillions of colors.)

Upon close inspection of the 3-LED projector images being shown, I noticed there were lots of oversaturated colors, the likes of which could never be created by a single chip DLP projector (but easily within the realm of a 3LCD projector). I didn’t hear the rep boast of how the 3-LED projector brightness had improved from 400 Lumens in 2008 to 1100 Lumens just one year (a significant improvement), or how using 3 primary color LED’s had dramatically improved the color gamut and quality over the use of a multi-color wheel (wait, that would sound like a 3LCD presentation!). Instead, both the DLP and Phlatlight reps claimed (in two different presentations) that a focus group had agreed the 3-LED projector on display produced a “perceived” brightness of nearly 2100 lumens, nearly a 1000 lumens more than its tested Lumens rating! Neither could explain why a focus group came to that conclusion, other than to suggest it had to do with the perception of bolder colors on the screen (PS: Not a scientific explanation by any means). But I figured the focus group might have come to that conclusion after it compared the output from a single-chip DLP projector (with a claimed 2200 Lumens output, and a tested color light output closer to 1000 lumens) to the actual 1100 Lumens rating of the 3-LED projector.

Background голова болит секс голова болит секс : As a photographer, videographer, and image-quality expert, I’m not a big fan of single-chip DLP projectors. I have yet to find (or test) a single-chip DLP projector that can match the color gamut and overall image quality of a similar-priced 3LCD projector. And as a color scientist, I can disprove the DLP claim that projecting white light through a high speed, spinning color wheel containing subtractive primary colors (such as M, C, Y) in addition to R, G, B creates superior color accuracy and gamut to a 3LCD projector. Many DLP projectors I’ve tested don’t live up to their claimed lumens either, coming in at 20-30% lower even in their bright modes. Sure, if you set a DLP projector to its Film, Photo, or Video modes (instead of Bright mode), image quality and color improves dramatically, but projector brightness often drops in half compared to 3LCD projectors with similar Lumens specs. Lastly, I’m also bothered by rainbow effects that plague single-chip DLP projectors, especially when viewing b&w photos, high contrast scenes, and a wide variety of movies. That said, 3-chip DLP units are in a different league altogether when it comes to image quality, but they’re also 10X the cost of single-chip units. And despite the claims on the DLP website, they are not capable of displaying 35 trillion colors. What they apparently meant to say, and I hope somebody at TI is listening, is that a 3-chip DLP projector may be capable of forming 12 million to 16.7- million visible colors using up to 35 Trillion color data combinations. After all, by definition color is a human visual experience, and if no human can tell the difference between two “color data combinations” then there is really only one true color present.