Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

The cost of 4k laser projection. Speculation Red Laser Price.

There will never in our lifetime be a 4K cine quality camera priced like a web cam or Aiptek ;)
There will never in our lifetime be a 4K 3d laser projector for < $2000
 
Everybody - i think Wayne was referring to an economy of scale and that demand will drastically lower prices. I believe that was his intention, and that his numbers were entirely arbitrary made to solely illustrate his point. In this respect he is correct. Why?

Take 1080p as an example. 10-15 years ago the first Sony and Panavision HD cameras Star Wars shot on in Sydney were in the ballpark of 150K-250K USD per camera.

And now you can get a Canon Rebel that shoots 1080p for 500 bucks... Economy of scale. Demand. Supply. Not rocket science.

The ONLY hurdle is how deep Laser projectors can penetrate the market... and is there actually a potential demand to warrant large scale supply? If demand warrants it, production costs will fall sufficiently and then yes we will see $2000 and cheaper laser projectors. If the demand is not there, which is also a possible case then... we all know he answer to that.

Cheers,

Ivan
 
Peter Majtan said:
I would really like some of that stuff you are smoking... No offense...
Do You have even a remote idea about how many $2000,- projectors have been sold world-wide by ALL the manufacturers combined?

~rant off~
Click to expand...

Peter, don't smoke, keeps you more logical. How does this have any bearing at all on how many projectors people will want to buy if they are cheap and superior to any TV set the can buy (at $2000 you also reach a zone where they can be used is a premium laservue like TV set (which can be considerably thinner) possibly at lower price. Keep rereading it if in doubt.
 
Sick in bed again.

There are already laser non mv projectors for less than $2000. The conversations against me show a general ignorance and disrespect for the truth, and lack of ability in dealing with the truth. I suggest that it change or give up, I'm sure about to give up and edit down my posts, because this insight is being ruined by lack of insight, not the intention of the thread, but repeatedly spiolers come to every thread sprouting nonsense, and don't matter how reasonable the explanation is in return, and sheer weight of chances given for appropriate responses to test their intelliegence and integrity they prove themselves blunders.

Ivan, it is even worse, you buy cameras less than $100 with fullhd, by chipset people allready with parts with greater than fullhd video capability, certainly working their way to shd. If your laser platform is made to spread to narrow rear projection sets (think narrower than laservue) you get economies of scale from the regular TV market on shared parts and research. A common mistake made in conversations like this is the lack of understanding in how artificially high the prices are (costs are still higher than normal, but the short term high prices go to paying down investment and maturing the production and production capacity while the older product lines reach their cycle end etc). The other part is volumes and general lack of understanding. This is why engineers tend not to post on consumer/practitioner forums, I have hardly ever had a good engineer question my judgement, but often privately concur, even asking for advice. There is way more complexity than being considered by these people, otherwise they would see that this extra complexity offers paths for solutions.
 
Wayne - the ignorance swings in both directions... I do completely understand the economy of scale. And I very much understand the R&D process and cost - having been involved myself in several R&D projects over the years - for 3 years I was even the head of R&D for a Japanese company and have single-handedly managed on their behalf design and development of 4K film restoration system for Kurosawa family - from scratch - and this was back in 2004-2006 - 4K was far from being a household term back then. During that project we have done extensive research into ANY 4K display technology - not just the projectors - and I have directly influenced SONY's development of the DVI computer interconnect for their SXRD projectors - which is what we ended up using for that project...

First of all - I do not smoke - this was simply en expression trying to say that you are way out of touch with reality if you throwing around such a numbers. Unlike TVs - projectors require far more complex instalation and a dedicated large projection surface - which is not a common in your average household. Never mind the dimmed conditions you would usually need to enjoy a projection. 100 million projectors will simply never happen - even if you were giving them out for free. There is simply not enough households that could adopt such a technology - regardless of the cost.

Ivan - I do understand economy of scale - but when put in such distorted reality - it does not make any sense at all...

Reality is that If RED sells 10000 of these projectors it would be an enormous achievement. RED is not (and IMHO will never be) setup for mass productions - main reason being the after-sales infrastructure required. Can you imagine the workforce you will need to support 100 million projectors? So please be realistic...

Peter
 
Sorry, I got mad today, a bit of a pain. I can elaborate a little on the digital cinema. Some things are dead cheap, somethings like compression codec processing requirements are not (but you can compromise and use a less complex codec to cut down extra processing). The problem with a cheap cinema camera is the lens (and sensor), you are barking up an awfully tall tree to get full quality at a cheap price (I tend to leave mountable lens and storage out of pricing, which can be greater than the rest of the camera). However I have come up with some eloquent potential solutions and compromises.

The realisation, above, is simply this, if you compromise quality you can design cheaper lens systems, but if you compromise in the right way, the quality can be restored automatically by filter in post (or on the fly, depending on quality compronise etc). You may notice that I have only rudimentary knowledge of conventional lens designs, because the designs I have come up with are radically different ways of doing it. Compomising quality allows for a wider variety of lens methods. So, a lot of work on the design side.

Here is the catch, the flexibility of the image maybe compromised in style and flexibility, but as long as you can produce a good standard cinema style, it is still a success and cinematic. This is not an elitest camera, as the movement has suffered from since 2004, it is a practical minimalist camera design for low end production, one step above a professional Eng camera in cinematic image quality. Cinematic does not have to be high end.

I am currently starting to contemplate a new first surface mirror design for simple format conversion for existing cameras, but tricky without the budget.

So what I proposed is basically little more than a camera equivalent to a simplified nex5n or J1 (16mm), or smaller. The smaller size does not matter, as I propose a new format conversion system, if all fails I can use another system that I came up with for another application, but will make the light path longer. In effect, I can take a medium size lens format down to smaller sensors. Also, my extensive design work on 35mm lens adaptors years ago allows a few enhancements to extend the quality of smaller sensors. So I can draw on handfuls of innovations over the years to lower the price from multiple directions. Nornally everything is justified with me.

I should not admit to the quality compromise and restoration trick, but it gives you something to think about. It is not debatable, it is just what it is, and I am starting to not be able to see/focus on my writing again, so have to quit tonight.


Thanks.
 
Peter Majtan said:
First of all - I do not smoke - this was simply en expression trying to say that you are way out of touch with reality if you throwing around such a numbers.
Click to expand...

Just general instruction on the evils of smoking, not nessacarily about you, but was used about me. Virtually every person I have come accross that thinks I am out of touch with reality is proven out of touch. I am open minded enough to listen to what you say and logically weight it up. Virtually everything I write has qualifiers on it (for honesty), so it is difficult to prove wrong, because "if", "but", "may", "maybe", "might", "or", "etc" etc covers a whole range of things, and figuative illustrations or approximations are likewise flexible. It is anazing how many peopke will jump on something without considering these (what is actually said) (often with a big chest and head unfortunately). So, when making accusations it pays to think about and weigh up what is meant (I have an exceotiin, I can barely read substantial information at times and miss things, like when I mistook which axis Des was referring too and missed the timing word).

Unlike TVs - projectors require far more complex instalation and a dedicated large projection surface - which is not a common in your average household. Never mind the dimmed conditions you would usually need to enjoy a projection. 100 million projectors will simply never happen - even if you were giving them out for free. There is simply not enough households that could adopt such a technology - regardless of the cost.
Click to expand...

That is a very bad statement, you really need to reread and think about why it is obviously wrong and very simplistic. You have missed whole swaiths of modern developments that are catching up with me. Bigger it, I'll say it, from the too, we are not talking about common projectors and projector parts, that is an entirely different subject. Many years ago (from memory) I concluded I could project my laser projector on most surfaces without even a screen, simply by either a image sensor picture of the scene to auto calibrate the image including warping from shaped surfaces (though of limited use as the only position it is guaranteed to look right is from the sensors point of view), or use a single pixel sensor and a flying dot to scan the scene (note it can also test/photograph the scene this way, another form of imaging now used). From this pixel intensities can be adjusted up or down. This is now developed. Yes, special projection screens can be used without diming (in mass production savings), but even cheap ones a laser can use, and I'm not giving away all the screen stuff I have been working on here. Putting aside using a common wall in a dark room (I am currently sick, so this is taking some effort with my memory issues). I think I was originally contemplating the rear projection set cross over benefits though I did not mention, my apologies. So a 40-100 inch screen on a wall, and a bookcase moved in place for the projector, is it really not feasible that a lot of households can buy one, even without giving them away. The installation of a properly made Laser projector should be easier than a conventiinal projector. You also equate the parts and costings of a normal projector not being talked about to a laser prohector actyalky being talked about, which, apart from te laser, should be cheaper (I forget if I was including an alternative system than dmd (that I think Red is not using) but there is another saving, particularly the design I have. I did say good engineer, and there are not many that good (yes the "good engineer" was a general go at the profession for any obviouse design flaws I see regularly). I did not say normal or average engineer, but good as in top notch, comprehensive, balanced and whole in their thinking. Reality restored undistorted. (Yes, given my limited skills I design as good as I am a PIB).

Ivan - I do understand economy of scale - but when put in such distorted reality - it does not make any sense at all...
Click to expand...
I have thought about what I say before I say it, before one knocks it, it pays to also think about it.

Reality is that If RED sells 10000 of these projectors it would be an enormous achievement. RED is not (and IMHO will never be) setup for mass productions - main reason being the after-sales infrastructure required. Can you imagine the workforce you will need to support 100 million projectors? So please be realistic...

Peter
Click to expand...

Peter, you obviously are not following the conversation, reality, big consumer electronics company with it's design, manufacturing and distribution network at $2000 ( as a complete replacement for TV, throw in screen, include rear projection set sales), include the 5 plus year life of the product if you must (maybe peak at 20-40 million in a year the shorter it is) maybe a hundred million is possible (unless I was talking about a cheaper price then less uncertainty) even across all competitors (if anybody else brings one out). For Red, I said that they could Handel much less volume at a much higher price, so I think I was maxing out their capability at a small fraction of a million, with an objective likely lowest price of $6k at capacity . I'm going to have to look at it to see, I have an Endocrinologist appointment in the monprning so cant devote time after midnight.

Funny thing is, I just received an email saying an order has been cancelled that I merely requested information on how it could be done within the day I sent it, so I could reorder differently, without delaying delivery (no, they could not adjust it). Similar mixups been happening around here.
 
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showth...ed-Laser-Price&p=968719&viewfull=1#post968719

Now you an sell it for $5k, but you must have a distribution network to sell in these volumes past the theater and production industry. This maybe as much ir more than any modern video projector sells, but Red offers so much more than even a new 4k TV, not so much less like a normal overpriced mechanism.

If course, the big factor here is the projector mechanism they use, I can do it cheaply, but it also can be done very expensively resulting in custom sensor/dmd like production costs. Such a complex beast of a mechanism puts a dent in the costs of production setup, manufacture, R&D etc. I am of course, presuming cheaper 'safe' lasers in the home version. Now you come back to 10,000 $10,000 projectors without a consumer distribution network, $6k would be pushing it, $4k probably not on. So 20k-50k units is probably the sweet spot to get it to $5k direct with limited consumer distribution in capitals etc.
Click to expand...

Firgive the typos, but there it is. Without a distribution network (consumer), $6k would be pushing it, from 20k-50k units at $5k with limited distribution. Also before it I did say hypothetical, as it is not out we can't say for certain what it is to say how it would sell.

The volume consumer market is a lot different from costly ultra low volume specialist runs. The last mob I was around talked in terms of billions of devices, anything below 10k was considered low volume decades ago, then below 100k, then 1 million, I forget if it is up to 10 or 100 million now. A eventually sub 1 cent chip in such volume will cost me $20-30 in single quantities out of a 1k batch (actually that might be the non special single quantity off of a 10k batch, I forget). Not everything scales so drastically, maybe over 50mw lasers don't, but those few hundred doller Chinese anmation lasers and high powered laser pionters obviusly have not heard of how much more expensive it would be to make a laser projector.

I am used to dealing with sickness that would grossly confuse the average person, and thinking straight despite it. So I can pick it when other's are.
 
I will lay down the challenge to Jim.

I will lay down the challenge to Jim.

Offer has finished on the 28 th September 2012

Amendments in Bold:

I will lay down the challenge, to Jim.

I am reasonably happy if Jim's team invents something like my two ultimate laser projector mechanism solutions, they could be around and stay current for hundreds of years or more.

If Jim can publish the mechanism design, with simplified summary, after the laser projector product (10/04/12) is out, and it is very similar and close to one of my two current most advanced mechanisms, according to the qualifiers, conditions and time frames in this offer (10/04/12) , I can offer Jim, eventually (these things take time), a conceptual enhancement on the single design to my current (at this current time of writing) mechanism design concept for exclusive and only use, in and as, stand alone consumer, professional, and theater video projectors only, that are manufactured by and for Red, and sold through it's distribution network to end users, not as an original equipment manufacturer for others or as parts for others to manufacturer, (30/03/12) for ten years from the original time of this offer (10/04/12) , if I am fit and well enough to, and if it has not already consequently (from now on) been tied up under contract (in my deliberation) (at this moment no contract is known to exist), for 10% of the net profit+ any government charge (royalty with holding tax etc) and incurred expenses (including patent and patent maintenance in my name across the field) with a yet to be determined minimum per unit and a non refundable advance projected to be equivalent to the 10% net on 10% of the agreed projected production, with a minimum equivalent to 10,000 units. This offer is current from the release of the laser projector and public publication of the laser projector details as outlined above, here, if within 6 months from now, and for a period of one week from the projector release, or details if it comes first, and or release (10/04/12) announcement. This week period is only the period to register interest and start negotiation, full agreement must be reached in a time period set at the time, but there must be at least qualified agreement of acceptance with in that (10/04/12) period, or the first month (as agreed at the time), for patent, potential and desirability investigations. My response and provision of conceptual design mechanism, to the official request of interest following the official publication of details here, in each phase, has an indefinite timeframe, and maybe in any form, brevity or detail I choose. There is also no guarantee (10/04/12) given that such a design can work or is practical (that is why we have qualified agreements to evaluate). This is to be done under the understanding and agreement from the interested parties point of view, that special circumstances might intervene and impractically delay the carrying out of this process from my end, in which case the offer is made void (this is genuinely not expected). No legal action is too be entertained or entered into on the one offering. You guarantee to maintain the perpetual secrecy of said conceptual revelations from your end unless officially requested to release by the offerer and limited to that stated and intended release. The offer is genuine to the best knowledge of the one offering. Any rejection of this offer by the party offered to, before the official publication of said details here, and official request of interest, or any pre-contract (as said), or withdrawal of offer, makes this offer void. Arrangements, discussions and agreements between the parties outside this offer, that may compromise the breadth or independence of the offer, at the offerer's discretion, can make the offer void. This offer maybe modified etc at any time before official publication of details here and subsequent official request of interest is shown which starts the process, even withdrawal.

I am, and retain, the sole arbitrator of technical interpretation, and of use, of terms and conditions in this offer, and at my sole discretion. Legal jurisdiction is that which applies in the state of Queensland, Australia, or other at my discretion. The court that applies to bring action from the other party, is the court in ×××××× Queensland Australia, or at my discretion. In the case of the nonexistence (11/04/12) of the level of court, the nearest relevant court to that location (probably Brisbane) in the state of Queensland applies, or at my discretion. (10/04/12)

That should cover everything.

Of course, you could just contact me in private to make other arrangements.

The arrangements, discussions and agreements section is just to tie up loose ends, in case any outside arrangement or communications between the parties would overlap or interfere with the offer, or what the offer intended to give (which was limited to one display application in the markets mentioned).

This is not the more limited technology I have been discussing earlier in the thread .

What you get is something that would not look out of place as a practical behind the scenes technology in Startrek.

Amendment 30/03/12: to clarify extent of use.

Amendment 10/04/12: ties up some more loose ends etc.

Amendment 11/04/12: corrected word "nonexistent" to "nonexistence". Auto spell checker error, and not a good day yesterday.

Amendment 09/11/12: Offer lapsed notice, and a location overwritten, but still current as in t's last last use. Minor spell corrections that somehow got through.
 
Last edited:
Holodeck ?.....Yes please....Respect and health to everyone on this thread..i appreciate your thoughts and the time to put it down here..there is nothing better than dreaming the imposable waking up and saying you can and try to make it happen. Im an artist surrounded by physicists in my family. My 19 year old brother is doing his phd in something with lasers beyond quantum that ill never fully understand but some of the stuff i hear about is crazy so im ready for anything :)
 
Sorry, yours is the first list I have seen, and I am laughing, not holodeck (though I have for years looked into many different ways, and this could be adapted with some new physics I spotted just after I got too sick to keep up with my weekly reading of the scientific press, so I have not got into it. However, the results might not appear so good as the scifi version, even with multiple surround transmitters (but a high number fills in problems, depends on what the real physics are, highly conjective, maybe a long shot, will have to look up my voyager technical manual to see how they proposed the physical version to operate). For one of my story series I came up with a solution that may apply to hard light holograms, but then again, real world physics needed again.

This is the sort of thing you would use for a console display or view screen.

I try to stick to directions that I know should be possible, and product I know how to make work (principles). For my stories I get into new physics, and have my own alternative physics hypothesis proposal that is fairly radical in addressing underlying physics, so your mention of beyond quantum is interesting, you can elaborate on it if you want. As I do not know enough to verify that the mechanisms line up (though I think I cracked a general spread 5 years ago) I do not talk about it.

I'm here to strengthen my proposal as well, to clear something up.
 
There we go, just made the amendment, there was another but I have forgotten (had one hour of really good health today (actually got to meet somebody about Red at the time, so great timing)).
 
I appreciate Les's input, but put scientifically it is merely more naturalistic. We see and appreciate the world this way, but the problem us that people are fickle, and it is too inconvenient, and also people that are not very observant, or unbalanced, have been misusing 3d effect. I want the free and natural effect subtly, with any exaggeration only used sometimes as a special effect. Like colorisation, a little subtle enhancement to make it look more real than real is great. Watched John Carter and the latest Marvel movie lately, and that is getting more like where we should be in 3d stereo effect.

We also have the other problems with people with defective vision, and 3d systems with defective performance.
 
Ideas on Ideas

Ideas on Ideas

Been thinking about how people use the term "idea" yesterday. An "idea" is too vague. "Concept" is a more stronger term, as it implies that you have a concept of how the idea works. But as I reminded somebody yesterday, it is not about just having a concept but about working out the concept. Therefore you have to work out method and direction (paths) to get to solutions (and for competeness, have reasons why to do it, why it will work, why people will need it, why people will buy, along with the other questions to a stage, if done right, that it then literally becomes 'unquestionable'. But very few times do we reach this stage in life in either design, or people in their questioning to recognise it.
 
I have just done an amendment to my offer to tie up some loss ends, legal domain, corrections, clarifications etc. I have realised that release of design (in one week timing section) was too loss of a term, so changed that to "product". I have also changed paragraph (in reference to the offer), to "offer" there are now to paragraphs to the offer.
 
Wayne Morellini said:
so your mention of beyond quantum is interesting, you can elaborate on it if you want.
Click to expand...

Ill do my best...its something to do with effecting entangled particles where what you do to one effects the other instantly anywhere in the universe.....so this information shared between the two particles exists out of time and space some kind of information or descriptor layer underlining the universe.....The scary thing is they are all waiting for quantum computers to tap in and play with it.

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/8...ommunicate-instantly—and-befuddle-scientists/

Cheers Wayne i do enjoy reading your posts.
 
Yes, I have been contemplating the use of entanglement in computer processing for a while (and other techniques). The thing is, it should be easy, but lacking the ness physics cred I can't get around to exploring it. From my serverely limited understanding (being meaning to study it for years to get a proper idea of mechanism and limitations. Finding mechanistic associations through maths (rather than including data) is serverly overated I think, but good for verifying the mechanisms you can find without it) entanglement is fragile. I practice a philosophy of forced engineering and should be able to get around this. At its simplest form, and I should not say this publicly, there exists the possibility of replacing the wiring around a chip and inbetween the smallest components (to be obscure) potentially greatly increasing speed, but I have figured how I could do that without entanglement anyway. BUT, anybody that knows entanglement knows it might not be that simple, with things (I want to verify) like the April fools sounding quantum knots, that implies that entanglement streams can interfere with each other, but then again, that is possibly a way to make a new processing system better than optical computing. That would blow apart many forms of future processing methods, requiring hybrids.

Continuing the above entangled processing theme. I am heavily in the community of a leading microprocessor designer, and computer language architect, red user etc is just some time out in recent years. I have come up with designs for a embededded real time virtual operating system, that after all these years sitting stagnating seems to still beats everything out there. As part of this I had to understand how the hardware systems were working, and came up with better ones (why I am happy with USB 3 and thunderbolt, because they more closely come to fitying in with the api's for my ideal bus architecture etc). This understanding and mapping process from problem space to solution space seems to be something people have trouble with. I can up with a number of new, I think faster/more efficient wats to do processing. I have come up with a nice method to do optical computing designs in house, a machine in your bedroom is possible. This is a low grade version, but doable quickly in development terms. I have come up with more advanced optical techniques going down to the smallest level, and hypothesized new smaller multiple levels of physics, to the building blocks of physics, way beyond what is currently known. I took that and came up with even lower levels of computing that go into a purely science fiction like territory, things you would not have dreamed of could have a scientific method, CAN. Problem is, until we can prove it, we don't know which version of my physics is true, and therefore what can be done with them (there are multiple possibilities, or flavours you could lossly say). That would be why quantum mechanics is so sloppy, a lack of understanding of the real mechanics behind it (two levels down). The possibilities of what we can do in future is tremendous, but we are just passing the stone age.

So anyway, this quantum knots thing may possibly allow a short cut down to the fastest computing type. It implies a certain flavour of physics I don't prefer, but have in my collection. I will put it this way, it implies a undeterministic universe in relation to infinite variability, though it could be variable with a smallest scale. Anyway, just blown a eighty to a hundred years of profitability out of the water if this is valid. Hmm, I am seeing variations on this in my mind that cross over with some of my other computing techniques that make it better. HAL is overated.

I am going to put something to you. One of my stories (I aim to do sciencefiction) is a world and time where quantum pics gas Ben mastered, to such a degree that the devices that have been made to wheel it a truely awful in their ability to wreak havoc in the hands of people. Such devices are band from public use to keep people safe from one another (technically the story is more elaborate but I down reveal my hand to people). Only the authorities are allowed to wear and use them, anybody detected with one is hunted down. But the problem is somebody manages to develop a sub-quantum device, that far out classes the quantum devices (I forget story process and resolution at this time), and it is on. There is some hidden context there, that sub quantum physics is so much better than your quantum physics. Sub Quantum physics is my official terms for these levels of physics. Obviously I am not talking about the lowest level, then it would be insane, but that was before I discovered the lowest level, so was only one level down. I have seen some funky stuff in scifi, but the funkiest is that I have found ways they could actually be done. I wonder what your holodeck friend Gene was thinking, wherever he was just having flights of fantasy, basing simethings on hyoothesis of others, or had some idea of some things. There are certainly some scientific flights of fantasy elements in his series that look related (I still regard much to still be fanciful though, without hidden outside forces in the story, that neither us or the story seems to know about). Such possible futures are so terrifying that Startrek seems tame, even in my stories I out physics limitations (brakes) on so I can still have a story that can be read with enjoyment by humans. For instance, imagine you could communicate and think at millions of words a second (more is likely but I have to dumb even this down so people can appreciate it, had no physical body, did not really use words or such forth, maybe even lived in a (self/community world) world devoid of solid form that was in a real world with physics so totally different words could not describe or see sense or touch, or understand what it there or exist in it, and even if you could exist in you might not be able to detect it even f it was here right under your nose. How could you write a story about that, I could try, but how would people read it, it might, in all authenticity, be seemingly so wildly random (to us) as to be in nderstandble or at least dreary/headache. It might seem like the gibberish ranting of a mad man, and even then fail to explain what was happening in any real or good detail. Academia could spend a hundred years just trying to understand the universe of such a story. I have come up with stories with elements of this, where messages passed along between ever changing universes and physics, so that you have to translate through universes that can still just barely understand the next translation point, produce nonsensical abstract communications (garbage) as the one sent through the universes is no longer able to understand their native tounge, intention, purpose, form or thought to send the appropriate report ( not showing my hand again, fill in the blanks). I don't believe such places to be true, but had ben just exploring the concept in relation to doing a story on a supposed universe related to what others believe in.


Evan, thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top