"Although you may not agree with everything Pete writes about the Projection Shoot-out and the players that participate, one thing is for sure - Pete is to be commended for spending so much time year after year doing his annual review. He is dedicated to reporting his opinions and views on the Shoot-out and making them available to everyone, everywhere. So, read on as Pete shares with you his opinions of what he thinks of this year's contestants in the Shoot-Out and the future of the event itself." -- Gary Kayye, CTS

Top: Polaroid's Polaview unltraportable INFOCOMM 2000's Projection Shoot-Out was marked by controversy. In fact, some are calling for its retirement.

This year's Projection Shoot-Out was anything but dull. One major manufacturer decided to pass up the event entirely, while another who faced a disqualification in one category eventually pulled all of its entries. The crowded "street" layout, with high-ambient light levels in several places (supposedly because of fire department regulations), got mixed reviews from attendees, while reflected light from too-closely-spaced, large-venue projectors played havoc with image quality.

The event's destiny started getting rocky when Sony Electronics opted to pass on the Shoot-Out several months ago, citing the decreased benefit that participation would provide. According to Clint Hoffman, director of display marketing for Sony's professional display division, many factors that influence projector and monitor purchase decisions — such as warranties, operation of the remote, menus, and networking capability — cannot be evaluated in a Shoot-Out environment.

This may be true. However, Sony's decision to step aside could have had repercussion. As one of the largest display-products manufacturers, Sony would have had products entered in numerous categories. In the past, the absence of a given manufacturer in any category would lead to all sorts of rumors about the manufacturer's ability to deliver a projector or monitor, or how reliable that display might prove to be.

Needless to say, many other manufacturers were watching Sony's move closely. Christie — closed out of the large-venue arena as a result of a "swapped" projector at last year's show — elected to go with the flow and exhibit its products on the show floor. Word on the last day of INFOCOMM was that InFocus also had decided to withdraw from future Shoot-Outs.

Well, this is 2000, not 1990, and the noticeable differences between individual displays are few and far between. All of the portable and desktop projectors entered in the Shoot-Out use imaging panels from one of three sources: Sony (polysilicon LCD), Epson (also polysilicon LCD), and Texas Instruments (DLP). In addition, numerous projectors use the same imaging engines, only the outer housings are different.

The situation among large-venue projectors and plasma displays wasn't much different. Many of the high-end projectors employ three-chip DLP imaging engines, with the only differences being the signal processing electronics and optics. Even the plasma displays seen on the show floor have confusing bloodlines and mixed parentage.

From a reviewer's standpoint, it is very difficult to see much of a difference between most desktop and ultraportable projectors. In fact, the differences are often attributable to variations between samples of the same projection lamp. Even the video and RGB scaling circuits have similarities, with most of them powered by Genesis or Pixelworks chip sets.

Judging image quality was a difficult task, compounded by the numerous fluorescent fixtures left on in the Business Projector and HD for Home and Business sections. As expected, these relatively high-ambient light levels flattened image contrast on any projectors unlucky enough to be situated directly below a light fixture. (And, as we all know, contrast is everything in a projected image.)

A similar problem occurred in the large-venue area, where seven projectors on one side of the hall were positioned back-to-back with four others. Given the light intensities, screen sizes, the number of bright images (such as photos with white backgrounds), and the lack of any blackout drapes to divide the back-to-back groups, it was no surprise to see grossly elevated black levels appear with annoying frequency on all 11 screens.

A new addition this year was a showcase of LED display technology. This was set up outside the Shoot-Out on a rear freight-loading platform, with each of the screens operating under full daylight conditions. Woe to those who forgot just how bright the southern California sun can be, as they exited the relatively dark Shoot-Out floor through a rear door and spent several minutes squinting, blinking, and rubbing their eyes!

Despite all of the politics and technical problems, and regardless of your opinions on the validity of the Shoot-Out, the Shoot-Out Committee's chair, Steve Somers of Extron Electronics, must be acknowledged for all of his and his able crew's hard work. Imagine spending the better part of a week pulling thousands of feet of cable, setting up racks of interfaces and distribution amplifiers, and networking dozens of computers — then having to tear it all down again a few days later. You staging guys know what I mean.

Here's my seventh annual review of the Projection Shoot-Out, which represents about four hours of standing in the dark and scribbling notes…

Category 1: Business Office Projection, Ultraportables

---

Peter Putman, senior contributing editor to Video Systems Magazine, owns PHP Communications, Doylestown, Pennsylvania. He is the author of The Toastmasters Guide to Audiovisual Presentations and reviews large-screen displays and computer/video interfaces. PHP Communications' website can be found at www.projectorexpert.com. He can be reached at vspete@projectorexpert.com