• State Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 7 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 31 subscribers
  • Views 598 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Support feedback
Options
Options
Related

This thread has been locked.

If you have a related question, please click the "Ask a related question" button in the top right corner. The newly created question will be automatically linked to this question.

DLPLCR99EVM: Comparable products for minimising feature size of light field

Kieran N
Prodigy 20 points
Part Number: DLPLCR99EVM
Other Parts Discussed in Thread: DLP991U, DLPLCRC964EVM,

Tool/software:

Hi team,

Could I please get some confirmation of the validity of my assumptions, and some recommendations about what parts to explore.

I'm looking to design an experiment which aims to use a DLP to produce a light field with the following specs:

  • Wavelength: 395-405nm
  • Max illumination power: >10mW/cm2
  • Feature size: minimised
  • No need to rapidly change the projection pattern

It seems to me that micromirror pitch should be a minimised when selecting the DLP, which has lead me to the DLP991U with its 4k resolution and 5.4um pitch, achieved using the DLPLCR99EVM and DLPLCRC964EVM. This is feasible for a final version, however I'd like to produce a lower-cost prototype with the aim of verifying the minimum feature size achieveable. Thus, I'm looking for another product with 5.4um, which ought to produce comparable results (just at a lower array size).

If those assumptions are correct, what products would you recommend for the prototype? I'm expecting to get hands on with the optics and am anticipating BYO laser, power supply, RTIR prism, and projection lens, but would like to minimise (/avoid) any PCB design to allow for rapid prototyping & keep the control system as simple as possible (no FPGA if possible?), which has led me to believe I need to find a suitable DMD EVM and controller EVM combo?

Thanks in advance for the help!

  • 0
    Prodigy 20 points

    The only ones I've found that fit the bill are the combo of:

    But AFAIK these aren't available in EVM format, and I suspect that the design effort required to get these running would exceed what I have available for a prototype.

    The only other close contenders I've found are DLPLCR50XEVM/DLPLCR67EVM DMDs paired with DLPLCRC900DEVM controller, however these are only rated in the visible light spectrum (how would they respond under 405nm?)

    EDIT: looks like the maximum allowable power density just drops massively to 10mW/cm2 which is above my required amount - so this should be a valid option?

  • 0 in reply to Kieran N
    TI__Intellectual 2055 points

    Good afternoon Kieran, 

    Operating the EVMs outside of the specifications outlined in the datasheet could jeopardize the integrity of the DMD. We recommend adhering to the recommended wavelength specifications provided in the DMD datasheet to ensure optimal performance and prevent potential damage to the DMD. 

    Other alternative EVMs to consider using for your experiment could be the DLPLCR90XUVEVM, DLPLCR90XEVM, DLPLCR90EVM, but these EVMs are 2560 x 1600 with a pixel pitch of 7.56 um.

    Regards,

    Tristan Bottone

  • 0 in reply to Tristan Bottone
    Prodigy 20 points

    Hi Tristan,

    Thanks for your response and recommendations.

    Q1) Perhaps I'm pushing my luck, but would it reasonable to say that the impact of operating outside the specification WRT wavelength would ONLY reduce the lifespan of the device (which may be acceptable for this experiment).

    That is to say, the light field profile when operating at < 420 nm on a device not designed for such wavelengths would still be comparable to that of a device that IS UV suited.

    Q2) Could you please confirm my assumption that a light field produced with a DMD of 5.4 um pitch at a HD array size would be comparable to a subset of that produced with a DMD of 5.4um pitch at a 4K array size?

    Hope that makes sense, thanks in advance!

  • +1 in reply to Kieran N
    TI__Intellectual 2055 points

    Kieran, 

    Please see my response (in blue) too both of your questions below.

    Q1) Would it reasonable to say that the impact of operating outside the specification WRT wavelength would ONLY reduce the lifespan of the device?

    Yes, however while the light field profile might still be comparable to that of a UV-suited device in some respects, there are still notable differences in performance. It primarily reduces the lifespan of the device, but issues with artifacts and/or degradation can also occur at the output. 

    We would not recommend using the DMD outside of their recommended operating conditions specified in their datasheet because the overall image quality and optimal performance of the DMD can be affected.  

    Q2) Could you please confirm my assumption that a light field produced with a DMD of 5.4 um pitch at a HD array size would be comparable to a subset of that produced with a DMD of 5.4um pitch at a 4K array size?

    Yes, your assumption is reasonable. The pixel pitch being the same means pixel characteristics remain consistent. The only limitation of an HD subset array size is the limitations in color depth and overall performance (resolution). 

    Regards, 

    Tristan Bottone

  • 0 in reply to Tristan Bottone
    Prodigy 20 points

    That's very helpful, thank you very much

  • 0 in reply to Kieran N
    Prodigy 20 points

    Please see follow up question regarding FPGA selection here.

  • 0
    TI__Intellectual 2055 points

    You're welcome, .

    Regards,

    Tristan Bottone