As competition among projection players heats up in both the front-projection and rear-projection TV (RPTV) spaces, a parallel strategic battle over the positioning of various technologies continues to rage.
Texas Instruments (TI) has been talking up the advantages of its digital-light-processing (DLP) technology, but rival manufacturers of LCD and LCOS (liquid crystal on silicon) panels are speaking up with their own version of the story, emphasizing different qualities.
DLP cast as reliable
A turning point in the positioning rivalry came with the publication of TI’s “Picture Reliability Study” in early 2003.
The company hired the Munsell Color Science Laboratory at the Rochester Institute of Technology to conduct measurements of several DLP and LCD projectors while they were operated continuously for 4,700 hours. The measurements indicated that both full-field and ANSI contrast degraded over time for the LCD projectors – falling to approximately half within 4,000 hours of operation – but remained steady for the DLP projectors. The measurements also showed that the DLP projectors had stable color chromaticity, while the LCD projectors exhibited significant shifts, particularly towards blue and/or yellow.
TI noted that the probable cause of the LCD projectors' failure were the organic components of the system. These include the alignment layer for the liquid crystals and various optical films needed to manage the light. In contrast, DLP technology is fully inorganic.
Based on the study, TI has positioned DLP as the “reliable” technology for projection, the clear choice for cases where the product needed to last for a long time. This struck a chord with economy-minded businesses. Critics were quick to note that TI’s study used projectors in continuous operation, and the results might be different for cases where the projector was turned on and off between uses.
Nonetheless, the implications for RPTV loomed large. Although a front projector may be used only sporadically, a TV sees considerable operating hours and is generally expected to have a lifetime of at least 20,000 hours. TI’s study did not test TVs, but there was speculation that the company might be encouraged to do so.
LCD camp counters with quality
Epson didn’t wait. It countered with a marketing campaign that emphasized the picture quality of LCD projectors. The main points of Epson’s campaign were that LCDs offer brighter images, better color representation, finer grayscaling and no color breakup.
Epson’s emphasis is on the superior quality yielded by using three panels and hence separate color channels that preclude breakup. Because most DLP projectors rely on a single panel, the technology is vulnerable to this criticism.
Epson may have provided a stronger response if it had conducted a reliability study of its own. If the results showed that LCD projectors had lifetimes equivalent to those of DLP, it would have cast significant doubt on TI’s study. However, most likely, both studies would have been dismissed as partisan.
By redirecting the marketing towards a position more favorable to LCD, Epson risked not addressing TI’s concern and hence lent credence to the accusation of short lifetime. On the other hand, Epson claims that its customers do not use the products for 4,700 hours, and thus what matters more is the picture quality during the period of use.
LCOS emphasizes similarities with DLP
LCOS technology in some sense stands between LCD and DLP – the image is formed by LCD technology, but the device is built on silicon and, most importantly, uses an inorganic alignment layer. In its marketing, JVC has chosen to emphasize the similarities LCOS has with DLP.
The company conducted its own picture reliability study, entitled Robustness of D-ILA Projectors, in which it noted that JVC’s LCOS panels use no polyamides in the alignment layer and routinely stand up to 2-kilowatt, high-brightness arc lamps in sophisticated products. Lifetimes were estimated at more than 100,000 hours, based on the robustness of the key materials used in the product – the limiting factor was the ACF connection. Furthermore, the thermal stability of the panels was measured, and they showed no change in image quality up to nearly 60 degrees Celsius.
In conducting this study, JVC adds credence to TI’s views. Indeed, the published results specifically state that JVC’s inorganic alignment layer does not degrade like polyamide-based alignment processes. In contrast to Epson, JVC appears to accept TI’s results.
The customer decides
Each company, representing its own technology type, is struggling to tell the story its own way. Of course, many other factors influence the buying decision, such as price, brand loyalty, and service offerings. And customers are not monolithic; some really do favor long-term picture reliability, while others prefer image quality. But overall, the purpose is to frame the debate in a way that emphasizes certain characteristics of the technology.
In the end, the customer has the wallet and will make the decision. In the meantime, the positioning battles will continue.
Kimberly Allen, Ph.D. is director of technology and strategic research for iSuppli. Emerging displays will be discussed at the iSuppli Flat Information Displays (FID) 2004 event in San Francisco on Nov. 17-19. For more information on FID 2004, please visit: http://www.isuppli.com/fid/index.asp



