3M Launches First Pocket Projector 187
An anonymous reader writes "Popsci.com has a writeup on 3M's new pocket projector, the 3M MPro 110, set to launch on September 30. 'In a dark room, it could project a big enough image to be the ultimate cheap-o home theater. The projector will sell for a mere $359. It doesn't have a speaker, so you'll have to get that separately. But really, how good could a microscopic speaker jammed into this thing sound, anyway?'"
They also have... (Score:5, Funny)
a lollipop with a Batman projector built-in, in case one has the need to summon the Caped Crusader. I saw it at 7-11.
Re:They also have... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Am I the only person ... (Score:2)
No.
As I was scrolling down toward the bottom of the page, I saw that and quickly scrolled back up thinking "Huh? Pocket protector"? (Well, it is "News for Nerds", right?)
Re:They also have... (Score:5, Funny)
I read it as "rocket projector", and I thought it was amazingly awesome. Like, a projector that flies across the room, shows a 1 second video, and then kills the C.F.O.
Re: (Score:2)
Wish I had mod points, you'd get 'em all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
First line in TFA:
"That's projector, not protector. But geeks will rejoice nonetheless."
Re: (Score:2)
only 640x480 (Score:3, Interesting)
Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.
Re:only 640x480 (Score:5, Insightful)
That's why they called it a Pocket Projector rather than a Home Theater Projector.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd much rather take a high definition small sharp screen than a shitty definition huge piece of shit though ;D, guess we are different.
Size isn't all that important, you just have to come closer, that's what I would tell her, if I had a girlfriend that is. (Knowing I'm going towards the off topic moderation I guess I would pick girlfriend as monitors, rather high def and small than low def and huge :D)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a step. Projectors for decent home theater are priced pretty nicely now. I think a good 720p projector can be had for about $1000 these days.
Re: (Score:2)
Not going to be much of a cheap hometheater setup at that resolution.
As others have pointed out, it's a pocket projector, not a HT projector. Also DVD resolution is only about 720 x 480 dropping down to 352 x 480 at LP. While not perfect, nothing to sneeze at considering the price. It would be ideal to catch a vid while camping.
Re:only 640x480 (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.
That may be your ideal, however that doesn't make it the ideal.
Camping serves many purposes, top among which is it's the cheapest form of lodging even if in the states there are heavy restrictions on doing it.
Another purpose it serves is recreation. There are a ton of natural wonders that either don't have services near by, or are just outside the reach of civilization. This may include lakes, hot springs, beaches, mountains, valleys, and certainly many others. However, this doesn't exclude camping for i
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the ideal while camping is to have no electronics at all apart from a cellphone for emergencies only. IMHO, that is.
You also need a blender.
For the margaritas, of course.
Then it doesn't matter if you did bring anything else, because after enough margaritas you won't remember about the other gadgets.
Re: (Score:2)
11" is a much bigger factor.
Anyway at washed out at 11" I don't see why anyone would get this, if it's for a toy it must be made much cheaper. You can get an LCD with much better picture obviously for less (if you get 17" ... I don't know where to get 12" or so and they may cost more ;/)
Anyway, the point was that no one can complain that an LCD is inconvenient anyway because how fucking convenient is it to get a 11" single tone and color area and something to put your projector on? Yes that's right! Not ver
Re:only 640x480 (Score:5, Informative)
Nope. 720 Ã-- 480 for NTSC and 720 Ã-- 576 for PAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that for widescreen? Don't the 720 pixels get squished down to 640 for 4:3?
Re: (Score:2)
What is recorded 4:3?
Even if you have an old tv, get the theater version, "fullscreen" versions cut out a lot.
TV Land is 4:3 (Score:2)
What is recorded 4:3?
Everything shown on the TV Land channel.
Some feature films are shot in 4:3 and cropped to 1.85:1 (close to 16:9) for theatrical release [wikipedia.org] using "tilt and scan". Others, especially Pixar animated films, switch between shooting in 16:9 with "pan and scan" and shooting in 4:3 with "tilt and scan" per shot.
Re:only 640x480 (Score:5, Informative)
No.
720 x 576 is 4:3 PAL where the pixel aspect ratio is 1.06
16:9 PAL is 720 x 576 where the pixel aspect ratio is 1.42
Re: (Score:2)
I understand, but what device has non-square pixels? As a result, as a practical matter, pixels get "squished".
In NTSC-land, 720x480 would have to squish down to 640x480 to give 4:3.
The encoder in your DVD player (Score:2)
I understand, but what device has non-square pixels?
A color encoder taking CCIR 601 data and feeding it over a composite, S-video, or component cable to a display. One of these is the encoder in your set-top DVD player.
Or every 8-bit home computer, every IBM-compatible PC in CGA, EGA, or VGA mode 13h, and every video game console prior to the original PlayStation.
Re: (Score:2)
Right, so besides your old analog TV - what devices use non-square pixels? This device is not an analog TV, so 640x480 should be perfectly capable of DVD video. At worst, it would be throwing away 12% of the video - and that assumes that you for some reason are displaying the overscan edges.
I'll let your list of devices incapable of displaying a DVD slide... :)
Re: (Score:2)
This is true for NTSC 4:3 standard definition (sort of...). Basically, NTSC is 720x480 and a sample aspect ratio of 10:11 - ie: each pixel is rectangular with a width/height ratio of 10 to 11.
Thus, to get the display width, 720 * 10 / 11 = 654. The additional 14 pixels is called overscan and is not shown on a standard TV.
PAL is 720x576 @ 59:54 which gives a display width of 786 and 768 of those are shown on a TV (with the remaining pixels being overscan).
There are actually rounding errors in those calcs as
Re: (Score:2)
No.
IF the video has to be scaled to compensate for square pixels (like many, but not all, computer monitors) then you always only scale UP to avoid such loss of information.
So for 4:3, you get 720x540 NTSC or 768x576 PAL. For 16:9 you get 854x480 NTSC or 1024x576 PAL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overscan happens in BOTH the horizontal and vertical direction, and to almost the same degree, so nothing gets squished (nominal), and there's little point in including it in (casual approximations of) aspect ratio calculations.
Re: (Score:2)
I would think it was preferable to lose some info rather than pretend you have more than you do, thus ripping DVD video to 640x480 being far more common than ripping DVD video to 720x540.
And, in fact, I just opened Apple's built-in DVD player with a 4:3 movie, and it uses 640x480, so don't take it up with me - take it up with Apple :)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, upscaling won't cost you much in bits with lossy compression. Even if you "pretend" to have a higher resolution, the codec will still very effectively omit redundant info.
540 is also not a multiple of 16, so encoding using that resolution is a bad idea all-around.
Downscaling the width will save you some bits, but
Re: (Score:2)
Not all DVDs are anamorphic [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably some weird "knowledge" coming from the PC kids have used 640x480 on their TV-out on the graphics card and that worked!
Re: (Score:2)
No need for the dripping sarcasm... do you really have a display device that has non-square pixels? If you don't, then you are watching 640x480 or thereabouts when you watch DVD 4:3.
Re: (Score:2)
Cool, that makes a lot more sense. So a 640x480 device is certainly capable of handling "DVD Quality" then, as only about 12% of the horizontal resolution is tossed out - same thing that would happen on a computer unless you stretched the vertical pixels.
Re: (Score:2)
And only 11 inches across
That's under bright lights. They said it was a lot larger with the lights turned down, but they didn't say how big of a picture it was.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I'll stay with my Epson projector.
While it's neat that this stuff is small, it's really not anything close to what's required for true home theatre projection. Even my old Benq projector didn't do so well at a native res of 800x600.
I really don't see the need to wank on about how this is a cheap alternative to home theatre projection. You'd be better off with a CRT TV over this device.
Re: (Score:2)
Using this for home theater projection would be utterly idiotic. There is no shortage and cheap projectors that already do a better job for a permanent or semi-permanent instalation.
Although the price is surprisingly cheap, I doubt the video quality will be any surprise for that price. That's just not what these kinds of products are about.
This is about presentation hardware for mobile professionals - salesmen, marketing, that kind of thing. Being able to make a last-minute presentation/sales-pitch when you
First? Not a chance (Score:3, Funny)
Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.
Re:First? Not a chance (Score:4, Funny)
Er, 3M makes rocket fuel? Definitely news for nerds.
Oh, wait. That was pocket projectors. I'm sorry. I was only off by one consonant.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First? Not a chance (Score:5, Funny)
We've had them for a long, long time.
Oh, wait that was pocket projectors? I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.
I know! 350 bucks and I STILL have ink on my shirt!
That'll teach me to glance at the subject line.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sorry. I was only off my one consonant.
Make that two now.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not if I'm happy to see you.
Re: (Score:2)
damn nerds (Score:2)
Almost won the UberGeek award (Score:3, Funny)
Anybody else read that as "3M Pocket Protector"? Because with those specs, that would be AWESOME!
Re:Almost won the UberGeek award (Score:4, Funny)
Anybody else read that as "3M Pocket Protector"? Because with those specs, that would be AWESOME!
3M pocket protectors have been with us for many years. To make one, take the sleve from a 3M floppy (5-1/4in) and fold it in half. Fill the front with pens and the back with your calculator and you are all set.
Even older were IBM pocket protectors. (Score:3, Informative)
- Staple two IBM tab cards together along one narrow and about 3/4 of two long sides.
- Fold down the top of one card.
- Stuff in pocket.
Re: (Score:2)
Me too.
Damn. How hard could it be to add space for a few pens?
HR Violation (Score:5, Funny)
I tried showing one of my female colleagues my pocket projector.
Anyone hiring?
Re: (Score:2)
Is that a projector in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
Specs (Score:5, Informative)
The article didn't list any specs but a little digging found this:
3M MPRO 110M
640x480 Resolution
LCoS Technology [wikipedia.org] (supposedly similar to DLP)
VGA and composite in
150g weight
Considering how small 1080p DLP chips are, and now that they're using LEDs as lightsources, I was suprised that a DLP model wasn't first to market...
That said, 3M has a smaller model for cell phone use: here [pocket-lint.co.uk].
Re:Specs (Score:5, Informative)
Spoke too soon. I knew some friends at TI had mentioned seeing prototypes of compact DLP projectors. Seems they're already marketing them to cell phone companies:
http://www.pocket-lint.co.uk/news/news.phtml/9849/10873/hands-on-dlp-mobile-phone-projector.phtml [pocket-lint.co.uk]
Soon... very soon we'll have our tricorders!
Re: (Score:2)
Be careful what you wish for. You may one day be visiting some personal sites while the projector built into your laptop is on and happily displaying to the world the deepest darkest recesses of your mind.....
see:
http://www.asylum.com/2008/09/12/teacher-accidentally-screens-porno-to-classroom/ [asylum.com]
Smart phone presentations? (Score:3, Insightful)
Something like this would be great when combined with a Windows Mobile version of Powerpoint or an iPhone version of Keynote. One more step towards eliminating the need for laptops. (Next up, docking stations for smart phones.)
Smart phone interface! (Score:4, Interesting)
Put it in a laptop? (Score:2, Insightful)
It'd be a nice laptop feature to have though, once the technology matures a little bit.
Good for DIY multitouch setups (Score:4, Informative)
Good for DIY multitouch setups
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=multitouch [google.com.au]
Who needs sound? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Who needs sound? (Score:5, Funny)
Who needs sound when you project goatse from your cellphone on a crowded bus?
Who needs a projector when you can setup a wifi hotpoint with everything redirected to a local cache of goatse.
Re: (Score:2)
Who needs wifi when you can pull down your pants and spread them?
Re: (Score:2)
that's so twisted I might just do it.
Well, I've only done a mirror of Khaaaan.net or whatever that url was that had William Shatner in Star Trek II yelling "Khannnn... Khannnn.... Khannnnn....." at your friendly neighborhood StarFucks.
I never tried Goatse. Khannnn... was frightful enough. A dozen or so laptops over and over again yelling "Khannn...." until they figured out they shouldn't connect to StarFucks.
Re: (Score:2)
What's their market for this thing? (Score:2)
I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine what the market would be for this thing. Even if the brightness isn't a problem, the resolution is too low for almost any worthwhile use I can imagine. 800x600 is about the lowest I would want for even the simplest tasks.
Well, I can "imagine" LP resolution DVDs, even regular SP dvd with some down sampling. I can really imagine a simple power point presentation being MORE than adequate at 640x480. Not that you don't have a point. WinXP hardly supports 640x480 anymore, in fact it's a bit of a pain if you want to output to a TV.
Re: (Score:2)
My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.
Re: (Score:2)
My job required me to give numerous presentations using projectors for about a year, and even when the audience was just a handful of people I wouldn't have been able to give a reasonable presentation with such a low resolution projector. In every one of the situations where such a small projector would have been useful, I simply printed my slides and handed them out, which was more than satisfactory to my bosses and the presentation audience sitting around the table.{/quote>
Well, absolutely. If you're looking for a decent presentation you simply can't beat slides for portability and the simple technology required to display them. This would include 35mm slides, while requiring a certain bother and effort to convert letter to slide, certain time and expense, this still is a viable technology. Ektachrome Professional I believe is rated at about 4096x3276, or in paper of about 350dpi or so. When making a copy, expect to lose at least 1/2 that (note, number pulled from arse), but that still about 2048x1638 which isn't too shabby. This presumes a good macro lens and such. When dealing with inkjet, I question whether printable transparencies or a good photo quality paper and slides provide a better result.
Now you or I would likely need at least 800x600, if not higher. I won't argue that. But 640x480 is almost good enough for DVD SP, certainly is good enough for LP DVD. The bulk of a series of slides or transparencies and the relativly simple nature of the equipment is likely to be more bulky than a laptop and a pocket projector. So I will still see it as being useful, if in the spiffy toy class.
Re: (Score:2)
By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.
I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.
Re: (Score:2)
By "slides", I meant "powerpoint slides", not film or transparencies. But your points are very valid.
I also see your point about low-quality DVD, but that seems like a pretty tiny market, people for whom a $350 device to show low quality video to a small group is a better solution than a variety of alternatives.
I was confused on the point of slides. I was unsure if you meant printed out transparencies or slides as in 35mm, where transparencies on an overhead projector are still quite the norm.
I do see a market for such a device. To me, it's a matter of a simple portable DVD player and this projector, or a laptop and this projector. The alternative really is lugging around an LCD screen which to be fair is a tad fragile. Keep in mind that this sort of thing was available in the past in the form of film strips o
April Fools to Reality in 6 months (Score:2)
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/01/1342225
Re: (Score:2)
Microscopic Speakers Sound Great (Score:5, Informative)
SoundAndVision.com (_Stereo Review_ magazine's website) is giving audiophile raves to a $180, 5.6 inch, 9.5 ounce portable speaker called Foxl [soundandvisionmag.com]. So the answer to the question is that for about $500, a projector and the Foxl could make a microscopic kit into a hugely entertaining movie theater.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, small speakers can sound great, especially with a subwoofer. What I don't get is the article's point on the lack of speakers in a projector. It's like complaining that a fishtank doesn't come with a bicycle.
I can't imagine why somebody willing to set up a projector for a home theatre, would be satisfied with crappy sound coming from a completely wrong direction. I can understand monitors and TVs with speakers, because they are usually in sensible locations with respect to the picture.
Yet most of th
Re: (Score:2)
No, if you even bothered to click the link I so helpfully included, you'd see in the first few paragraphs that not only do the audiophile reviewers say it's $180, but they point out that it's a special discount to the public for a limited time, even though it rises to only about $250, and that it's worth something like 10x as much for its quality.
But hey, why not just say something stupid in public?
Killing things (Score:2)
I know people are complaining about the resolution, but honestly, the only time I want a bigger screen than my monitor is to play huge Quake III Arena on my wall.
(Yes, I know, but it suits my gaming needs. So sue me.)
Multiplayer with one PC? (Score:2)
but honestly, the only time I want a bigger screen than my monitor is to play huge Quake III Arena on my wall.
What do you do when you have friends or relatives over, and they don't own their own PCs (for example, they might be children), yet they still want to play video games with you?
nothing really new here (Score:3, Informative)
Re:nothing really new here (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, as another poster pointed out, what is groundbreaking is that this is the first uber-small projector to actually be "for sale". As I understand it, all the other "small" projectors are expensive prototypes used in large corporate peeing contests at trade-shows.
Chevy Volt anyone?
so now that this is the ultimate projector... (Score:2)
does that mean regular projectors will come down drastically in price?
didn't think so.
Seriously isn't that how it works? New tech is way expensive and old tech drops in price? This pocket projector seems downright reasonable for what it is.
uh.. nice.. but kinda useless (Score:2)
I'm trying real hard to see how useful this gadget will be, I mean, up to 11 inches widescreen right now is kinda of .. "ahem" limiting. Laptops typically have 14 inches screens and up anyways, so, I can't see how this mini projector can compete with that.
But I suspect that when they can do something like 1280 x 1024, where you get about 3 feet of widescreen view , then it will be truly a useful device to use for meetings.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying real hard to see how useful this gadget will be, I mean, up to 11 inches widescreen right now is kinda of .. "ahem" limiting. Laptops typically have 14 inches screens and up anyways, so, I can't see how this mini projector can compete with that.
As I said in another post, an LCD screen is rather fragile, not the sort of thing you would choose to travel with if you had a choice.
If you had a laptop already, for that size use the damn screen. But I suspect that in a dark room you could expand this out beyond that which is practical for a laptop.
But, here's the kicker, a laptop has a bit of bulk to it. Imagine such a device on a portable DVD player. That would be rather handy. For portable applications I can see the benefits over a laptop LCD scree
Re: (Score:2)
Cell Phone Terminal Services Client (Score:2, Interesting)
With this and a virtual keyboard [virtual-la...yboard.com] and mouse, you can carry your laptop in your pocket.
What, your laptop doesn't fit in your pocket? Would you settle for a cell phone running something like ThinStation [sourceforge.net] and a cellular-internet hookup? Remember, "The network is the computer."
In Sci-Fi We Trust (Score:2)
Bill The Galactic Hero, (by Harry Harrison - one of the better sci-fi novels) had a bit where Bill was continually being harassed by a trooper to convert to his religion. Once or maybe twice, the trooper got out a cheap little pocket projector displaying how the apocalypse and heaven would look like for Bill in the future.
I've read a lot of sci-fi, but that's the only book I can remember that uses a pocket projector.
There's a great quote in it that goes something like this:
"You are angry my Son. Anger is th
Oh, yeah? (Score:2)
I got yer pocket projector right here, buddy!
Won't go anywhere (Score:2)
I don't want to put down their effort, but this is the fifth "first" portable projector I'm hearing about in the last 3-4 years and they all suffer from the same problems: low resolution and extremely low brightness.
One of the pocket projectors was even built into some models of cellphones (the fact we don't hear about such cellphones is a testament about the success of this feature).
The pricetag isn't way too high, but you have to consider that at this low res/lumen, it does perform worse than the screen o
Nerds, huh... don't make me laugh. (Score:2)
Real nerds support Microvision's projector [microvision.com] because they want virtual retinal displays [wikipedia.org].
How hot does it get? (Score:2)
How hot does it get when projected on a wall?
Say, 4 foot by 6 foot?
Re: (Score:2)
It's LEDs, and hard to see at 11 inches, so I'm guessing "not very".
And next, arriving in time for Christmas... (Score:2)
(sorry)
A mere $359 (Score:2)
Whew. Amazing how cheap $359 became when gas hit $4.
Lamp Costs (Score:2)
With projectors, the cost of replacement lamps QUICKLY surpasses the cost of the projector itself. So, quoting just the sale price of a projector is a bit like quoting the price of a new car, without any mention of gas mileage (or engine specs like # of cyl. and hp, which can give you some idea).
While being "pocket" sized is interesting, I don't think the size convenience is nearly enough to make up for the short lived and very expensive bulbs found is ALL mass-marke
Hard to see at 11 inches? (Score:2)
Seriously, what use is it? Real projectors are hardly huge (mine is about the same size as an Eeee).
For $25 more they could put a proper LED in it.
Making bulb-based units obsolete... (Score:2)
The whole bulb-based generation of projectors always amazed me, with the astounding costs of replacement bulbs.
Does anyone know what drives that? Is it simply that they are associated with devices that used to cost several thousand? When my sharp projector's bulb blew, I looked around, and it is cheaper to buy a new projector than replace a freakin' bulb. And this new generation of projectors are selling for half of that.
I actually disassembled the bulb assembly on my Sharp, and dug the core element out
Re: (Score:2)
...because I'm pretty sure 11 inches wouldn't be very useful.
That's what she said!!!
Uh, what were we talking about?
Re: (Score:2)
Me too! I thought it was a historic article and about the first one from the 1930's or whenever.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Yes. Electronics are small. That's hardly new.
Now, small speakers that don't suck, THAT would be new.