• State TI Thinks Resolved
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 4 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 29 subscribers
  • Views 611 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.

TI makes DLP development difficulte

Torsten Wagner
Prodigy 30 points

Dear TI team,

I just like to give a general remark to my up-to-now journy with the DLP systems.

I have to say I'm a bit disappointed. I know TI as a helpful and rather open company. However, for DLP it seems to be very different. I guess many engineers world wide are interested in the DLP technology for different purpose rather then video projection. However, TI does not provide much information about how to use a DMD without all the whistle and bells added in closed source FPGA code. Many applications need a very different set of parameters compared to video projectors and it would be a real help if we could access more details e.g. how to control a DMD by our own set-ups rather then trying to tweak a projector set-up to do things out of it specification. 

I know I could buy a discovery kit but also there I have to rely on a set of FPGAs which only give me very limited access to the DMD.

Why not publishing a detailed datasheet of DMDs and leave it to the customer how to operate them in the same way like TI is doing that with any other IC? I'm really sorry if I sound a bit unhappy, however, over the last weeks I tried to get utilise DLP technology and all the time I ran against some missing information and limited datasheets.

It would be nice to hear what are the reasons for TI to keep the DLP system so closed and why TI is not going to publish details and white papers how to access a DMD directly. This would include to sell samples and dev-kits of DMDs (not the pico-projector or the discovery systems bur rather just the DMD-part) for developers which seems to be not available as well.

 

Please enlighten me

Torsten

  • 0
    TI__Intellectual 2175 points

    Dear Torsten,

     

    Thank you for the candid feedback.  As you mentioned TI strives to be as open as possible because we believe that philosophy is best to help our customers solve problems.  For example, we are releasing chipsets like the DLP1700, DLPC100 and DLPR100 through our distribution partners and posting data sheets for each device on www.ti.com/mems to make our DLP technology available to a wider customer base.  In addition, we are updating development kits, like the Pico Kit, and enabling entirely new development platforms, like the LightCommander™, to provide customers who may be developing applications beyond video projection more control of the DMD.

     

    Our desire is to provide our customers the ease of use, flexibility and control they need to quickly solve their design problems, while maintaining the high reliability and quality of DLP.  We believe providing a chipset solution is the best option to achieve that goal.

     

    Thank you for your interest in DLP.

    Best regards,

    Eric

  • 0 in reply to ELD
    Prodigy 20 points

    Dear Eric,

    In the spirit of the above message, we are searching for support on the DLPC100.  Specifically, the data sheet (DLPS019A from December 2009, revised in January 2010) seems to suggest that the maximum transition time of this part is 1 nanosecond.  First, we do not measure the performance of this part at 1 nanosecond, and in any case we cannot achieve this performance with our remaining electronics.

    Therefore, we are interested in your feedback as to whether a smaller transition time of approximately 10 nanoseconds might also be appropriate.

     

    Thanks and best regards,

     

    Dan Michaeli

    dan.michaeli@sirona.com

    718-482-2159

     

  • 0 in reply to Dan Michaeli
    TI__Genius 9935 points

    Dan,

    I am anwering for Eric. I have been working on this question.

    After extensive investigation of the DLPC100 PCLK transition time spec, we have determined that the spec value of 1 ns should be a MIN rather than a MAX. That is, the minimum transition ttime for the PCLK is 1 ns. It can be – should be – longer (lower slew rate). The maximum transition time depends on the board layout and noise environment. A MAX value can not be specified, but 25 ns or longer should be safe.

    We will change the DLPC100 data sheet PCLK transition time by moving the "1 ns" out of the "MAX" column and into the "MIN" column, where it should have been.

    I believe that this answers the concerns of the customer. I apologize it taking so long to settle this question.

    If there are other questions, please let me know.

    Best regards,

    Pascal

     

  • 0 in reply to Pascal DLP
    Prodigy 20 points

    Pascal,

     

    Thanks so much for your prompt reply.  This information was very helpful and addressed our concern.  I will let you know if there are additional questions.

     

    Again, thanks for your help,

     

    Dan Michaeli