Prototype Sanyo projector throws up 1080p at near point-blank range
By Darren Murph 
posted Apr 14th 2009 2:14PM
posted Apr 14th 2009 2:14PM
[Via AkihabaraNews]
posted Apr 14th 2009 2:14PM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I audibly said "wow" when I saw this.
same here. I'm now imagining the 150" surface style table pc I can build with this
I said wow too, but I was thinking of the probable price...
7000 lumens? It should be possible to see a nice immage even without closing the curtins and swich off the lights.
What kind of bulb does it use? How hot it gets? How many minutes does it lasts? And specially how much would a replacement cost?
LOL "remind you, we're talking full 1,920 x 1,080 resolution" yeah, at 100 inches thats 19 pixels an inch. The default resolution on a Windows machine is 96 pixels an inch and on a Mac 72.... Most people set it twice as high. This image is going to look like a Monet, not a Manet.
@sodapop
You really don't know what you're talking about, do you? DPI has nothign to do with OS, and is generally irrlevant as far as monitoris are concerned. Monitors generlly work off dot pitch, or the distance between pixels. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dot_pitch) You can then calculate a DPI off that if you wanted, but as far as screens go, not many people mess with DPI. Usually people evaluate monitors from the opposite perspective, looking at monitor size and maximum resolution, not DPI.
For a large screen like this, it is not intended to be viewed at the 1-3" of standard computer monitors...it's intended to be viewed much further away, potentially even making it appear more crisp than a computer monitor.
I can safely say I also said "wow" as well. Not to mention I could actually see this being the TV of the future.
@sodapop
Viewing distance, viewing distance, viewing distance.
A 100" screen viewed from 12 feet away will look about the same as a 24" screen viewed from 3 feet away. The rule of thumb for HD viewing distance is 3 times the height of the screen. (If you opt for 150" then move your chair back another 6 feet.)
I don't believe it uses a bulb, I think it is connected to a continuous network of fiber optic cables that are routed to your projector, through the earth, from the equator, capturing a total of 500 square miles of sunlight no matter what time of day and directing it straight onto your wall after reflecting off the DLP mirrors and through the color wheel (or prisms I didn't see the tech mentioned).
So to answer your second question of when will the bulb burn out I am going to say not for several billion more years.
'but _it's_ latest'
Say what Darren? Fix that shizz fo nizzle, my dizzle.
Since it is a possessive connotation, "it's" would be correct in this situation.
You fail.
Please. Move aside, fool.
@rebel - ha ha
Since it's a possessive connotation, "it's" would be incorrect in its use here.
Dead_Rebel fails.
Actually, the the correct possessive form is "its", "it's" is only correct when meaning "it is".
not to be a grammar nazi to the grammar nazi's grammar nazi... I believe its would be correct, as it is being used as a possessive pronoun, and not a contraction for it is.
I got you, my frizzle.
Word, brother.
@Dead_Rebel
No, "its" is the possessive form of it. "It's is "it is" so it is you who fails.
You all have some reading up to do.
If you were talking about a projector that John Doe manufactured, you'd say "John Doe's projector." Note the " 's" after "Doe."
In this form, the " 's" kind of rule applies to "it." Even though it defies what you net monkeys read daily and you think you're educated, you're not.
"It's" is correct here. "Its" would be completely interchangeable and not many people would notice, but yes, I am right, love it or hate it.
@Dead Rebel
Listen to this: "Sanyo's had a knack for pumping out short-throw projectors, but *IT IS* latest prototype unquestionably takes the cake."
That's what you claim is correct grammar. Please learn simple English before replying again about how you are right and everyone else is wrong. "It's" is the contraction form of "it is." The possessive form is "its." If you are referring to a specific person possessively, you would use, for example, "John Doe's projector." However, the apostrophe does NOT carry over when using the word "its."
You sir, FAIL.
Dead_Rebel: It is time for you to repeat second grade. So sorry. Possessive pronouns never use an apostrophe. (Yes, I said never, and I mean it.)
http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html
@ Dead_Rebel
No, you fail. I very specifically learned that "its" is correct for possessive form, and "it's" ALWAYS ONLY means "it is", various teachers throughout the years made a point to make sure we knew that, and it's something I've never forgotten. Did you specifically learn otherwise or do you just think you are right because it makes sense? English doesn't make sense friend, or are you new to the language? We are very much not mistaken. Hell, even the Engadget editor fixed his mistake, having noticed either our post or his error, have a look for yourself.
It's one thing to be a fool, but being hell bent on staying a fool is even more foolish indeed.
-Taylor
All y'all need to get out this hood.
I hope rebel was just being a troll since otherwise I'd have to accept the great shame that he has brought shame upon his family, neighborhood, city, state, country, species, and planet.
The universe weeps.
"JustinM @ Apr 14th 2009 4:20PM
Dead_Rebel: It is time for you to repeat second grade. So sorry. Possessive pronouns never use an apostrophe. (Yes, I said never, and I mean it.)
http://www.cgl.uwaterloo.ca/~csk/its.html"
Dude, you linked to a Canadian website. What do they know about English. Don't they speak french up there?
Price: $25,000,000
Save money and get a huge LaserVue set.
Holy cow, that thing is gigantic. Or that lady is a foot tall.
Either way, I want one of each.
bahahahhaahaa you win the internets!
What lady? I assumed she was part of the projection! We may never know....
She's Asian, it's possible.
Help me, Obi..... eh, never mind.
The regular tech model was not available so they pulled her from accounting.
After she got kicked off the Ultimates for sleeping with everyone, Janet Pym had to return to modeling work to pay the bills.
I was thinking the same thing!
This can't be real! It's HUGE!!!
Is that a camera in the fifth shot?
The title tempted me to throw in some lines from Return of the Jedi.
Thankfully, I resisted the urge.
would you go for "At that close range, we won't last long against that DLP Projector." or "Our walls can't repel firepower of that magnitude."
Ahh, that finishes my last crossword clue: "Opposite of iPod Shuffle".
This thing would be cooler with a nicer exterior that doubled as a component rack. I like the concept, though.
Very true, that's one problem with traditional projectors. Your components and your projector are usually a good distance apart in a home theater setup because the components are usually off to the side of the room and the projector is in the rear. Put this up front with your receiver and a/v equipment and then you just have to place speakers, pretty sweet setup.
Even if it didn't come with built in shelving, it wouldn't be a big hassle to put shelving off to the side of it. 150" screen with everything put the speakers right up front would be damn sweet in a home theater. To bad this thing will probably cost as much as a house.
My thought is to mount it BEHIND the screen, just reversing the image like many projectors are capable of.
Then you can build shelves for your AV gear and speakers that are all flush to the surface of the wall/screen. You could even create an access passage behind all the gear, if you have enough space.
letstakeawalk has the right idea. The biggest annoyance to me with a projector is either the components are behind you and are hard to work or in front where they are ugly.
Other that that this thing is stupid as it gets. I have a 125" screen that feels about right. I tried a 100" forst but it seemed too small for a theater experience. I really think 150" would be about right. Besides from being huge this thing needs to be 2-3 feet from the wall? Take a bench and put it 2-3 feet from a wall in your house and see how fast that get annoying. Then for who ever thinks this would be good for a touch screen: Where will you stand? On this thing?
Nice marketing photo. Have they somehow figured out how to project dark matter to get perfect contrast and black levels in a bright room?
I would say unless it projects using paint rather than light, they are probably being a little optimistic.
Even if it were an actual photograph, it would go through rigorous post-pro (aka photoshop) and the levels would be adjusted so black is black and white is white. A projector THAT bright would likely have no problems getting white whites though. The blacks would be the only problem.
The unbelievable (and misleading) part is the well-lit wall with the perfectly black blacks in the projected image next to it. If the wall has enough light aimed at it, then the projected image should be washed out...
Plus, there should be a shadow from the prototype on the wall behind it. The one on the floor is fine, but then it just cuts off when you get to the wall. Obviously side-lighting would fix that, but if there were enough side-lighting to explain the lack of shadow - it wouldn't explain the blacks in the projected image.
At that size its kind of useless......... The actual projector....... The picture is a brilliant achievement along with the ability to have it thusly as close...... But who needs a projector roughly the size of a coffin.....
Is it just me or does the entire picture look photoshopped?
yeah... either it's a photoshop or this thing is crazy good at what it does.
Well the shadows on the lady's face match the angle of the shadows on the floor, so I'm fairly certain the lady and prototype (which I'm convinced is real and not a rendering) are legitimately in the room (of course it's not too hard to place the lights in the 3d scene in a way that would match the shadows).
It's possible the projected image is photoshopped, but it's just as likely that it's not. A 7,000 ANSI Lumen projector at 24" would produce a very lifelike image (lots of reflected light which makes for a good photograph).
I don't know... every time I look at it I change my mind. The prototype itself looks a LOT like a rendering and the quality of the images don't seem to match up. (Woman and Carpet show imperfections but the prototype doesn't)