Well, I'm starting on a new build. According to the Focal Calc, I'll get a 100" image at just under 11' of throw from an un-split configuration with a 10.6" panel and a standard triplet. This only a slightly shorter throw than my 17"/pro setup, and it's widescreen, so the overall effect will be, I think, similar.

Parts so far:

• 10.6" LCD kit from Johnzo1995 group buy.
• LL/Vue 400W ballast
• Double ended 6500K lamp kit
• LL 12V fans (2)
• LL wiring kit
• LL Pro reflector
• LL Standard lens and fresnel set, recovered from my cardboard and duct tape test setup.

This is likely going to be another more or less standard straight shooter, but I might reconsider. There will definitely be some changes from the regular "dog coffin" approach, since I have some goals in mind for this build.

I want to be able to pack this projector into my car, for portability. This projector should be able to go to a friend's place to watch movies elsewhere. In fact this may be it's primary duty, since I already have high def at home.

As such, the carpentry will be designed around lightweight construction, with some emphasis on durability and rigidity. This means goodbye, MDF.

The focus mechanism needs to be more flexible than I've normally done, since there will be a wider range of focal distances that I'll be using. I have access to a somewhat portable 80" 4:3 screen, so that's likely to be the screen most often used.

At this stage, I'm thinking of a mini-Haas type design. I'll probably go angular, rather than curved, because I don't have the fancy CNC to work with. Angular also gives me more options with the focusing department. Given the high lumens success that I experienced with my pro lens projector, I want to design this unit with a similar focal mechanism. I'll have to elaborate on it somewhat, so that I can make adjustments faster and easier, however, I'm confident that I can do so without changing the basic concept.

Also stealing from my pro lens design, I'll be using a similar light box. I may change this up some for thermal design reasons, since I'm not entirely happy with the thermal design of my pro lens projector, but I like the concept, and I think it works well.

I'm considering a folded design as well, but first I want to make a mock-up of this one to see how it will fit.

cant wait to see what you come up with.....i know it wil be interesting

yessss..i feel you man..i'm going to build one based on that panel as well..i've already got all the standard parts so I'm anxious to see what you come up with..i also did the ugly box the first time around, but this time I'm going to do an adaptation of sj's art deco box. I can make it look alot better than box 1 and it's alot simpler with the modular design. I can use the rail system to adjust the light/sled/triplet boxes to my hearts content.

Wow,welcome aboard Supra!
This train is getting really packed really fast.
Great news,Its easy to see why people are interested in this panel ithas to be a big step foreward for us all in diy terms.
Cheers P

Good luck with your projector!!
the 10.6 inch panel has become a great part of projectors as it brings our projectors closer to commercial than ever before.

What's the big deal about the 10.4? Is it more transmissive or something? Sorry for the tangent Supraguy

where do i begin:

1) It's smaller so you can have a smaller box than the standard 15" kit (15" is 12"x12", this is 5.5"x9")
2) It's full 720p which is higher res than the 15".
3) You can use the standard lens set and actually have corner to corner focus and much more even brightness.
4) It comes with many common inputs (composite/component/s-video/vga/dvi)
5) The price isn't too terrible ($260)
6) Although it doesn't change the throw of your triplet, it does make the picture smaller, allowing you to move the projector further back.
7) It has a smaller dot pitch by design so you can sit closer without noticing screen door.

that's all I can think of for now...

Waiting to see pictures of what you come up with.

Why the unsplit design or did I misunderstand?

Hope to do the same someday

cheers

Wow. So many questions... But tangents are welcome, this isn't likely to be a very linear PLOG anyway.

The 10.6" panel doesn't change the throw of hte LENS, but it does change the throw of hte projector as a whole. In this case, for a 100" projected image, the projector will be just a bit under 11' away from the screen. For my current 17" with pro lenses, the distance is just a bit more than 11', so the throw is similar. Acually, when you scale the 17" down for 16:9 aspect ratio, it's probably a slightly LONGER throw with the 10.6" panel and standard lens than it is with a 17" panel and pro lens. Add in that it's 720p capable, and this becomes a real win for DIY builders. The overall cost isn't much different from a 17" with a pro lens, but the box size becomes so much smaller.

I'm going with the unsplit design because I won't need keystone correction. Also, as I mentioned, the design ideas that I came up with for my pro lens box seemed to work so well in terms of lumens output, that I want to see if the results are replicatable. I've done some quick calculations, and if I assume an average panel efficiency, I think I'm expecting about 200 ANSI lumens from this projector.

This is because of the one DISADVANTAGE to a smaller panel: Size. With a larger panel, it will 'capture' more of the light radiating from a point source. With a smaller panel, in order to capture the same amount of light, the panel would need to be closer to the lamp. Dealing with the same FL collimator fresnel, however, there's a definite limit as to how much that can be done. However with the design that I have, I can 'cheat' a bit.



I've had an idea for the panel sled. I will not be using keystone adjustment per se, but with the small size of the panel, I ought to be able to make an adjustable rig which will do an effective lens shift. This will allow me to raise or lower the projected image by a fair amount.

Supra,
also glad to see you aboard the 10.6 express

As it stands now, i think Pun is in the guinea-pig slot for total polar replacement.
I have stripped the 2 film mirror layer from the back, but i want to get into a test-bed mode with some smaller lampage then my current 575w rig before i remove any other layers.

This brings up 2 questions i was curious to get your take on.
1) What are your initial thoughts or plans for the polars?

and two-parter,

2) Are you sticking with 400w because you have obtained such good results in general with your rig?
furthermore, do you see any possible downsides to a 400w source with the 10.6 (energy& heat aside, just in terms of image quality)
I ask because im really on the fence about lamp size, so i look forward to your adventures and insight while testing your initial line-up of parts
yoshyspawny

I'm going to be using a 400w to. I think that the only down side is the big bulb ( the bulb is bigger than the lcd). I think that you would mainly just need to find a different reflector (if you use one) as it would have a different size to focus on. (I might be wrong so please fix if wrong )

Goodluck man!! looking fowward to the progress as i am doing a similar build.

"unsplit doesn't use keystone correction" ???
It was my understanding that the only reason you would do a split design is to have the front fresnel slightly agled for keystone correction.

@yoshua:

1. If it ain't broke... Initially, I'm going to leave the panel alone. Once I'm done with that, I will consider removing the "mirrored" layers, but the front polariser, I'm going to leave that alone. Experience has taught me that leaving those layers alone is insurance for the panel. If I'd done an AG strip on my samsung right away, the scratch in the AG would have been a very serious matter indeed. I consider it a protective layer on the panel. Since there are 2 such layers, I'll entertain the thought of stripping one, once the projector is up and running. Before that, I'm going to leave them alone.

2. I already have a 400W lamp, socket and ballast. It's a small form factor double-ended lamp, which seems to be perfect for the job. Why wouldn't I use it? If I had one of the 150W ceramic lamps and appropriate ballast, I'd consider that as well, but I have yet to see raw lumen numbers for those that might indicate superior performance. Also, since I have the 220mm and 317mm fresnel lenses already, this becomes a simple solution with known results. I think that I can look forward to very even projection lighting with this setup.

@Shiver:

Unsplit doesn't have keystone correction, is what I mean. Because the front fresnel can't be tilted to adjust for it. But with the smaller panel, I will be able to use lens shifting (Or, more accurately PANEL shifting) to move the projected image. The projector still needs to be perpendicular to the screen, but I will be able to adjust the height of hte projected image by moving the panel up or down by a couple of inches. As such, I will be able to have the effect of keystone correction. Since I know that the standard lens can focus a 15" panel, that gives me quite a bit of lattitude with the location of the 10" panel for offset projection.

Excellent idea for some shifting without the front fres in the way.. but... doesn't this eat away at one of the most important ( i would say THE most important) features of using this panel: a smaller box?

Yes, it does increase the overall box size, but only by a couple of inches in height. The design that I'm sketching out only has about 3/4" of travel for the LCD plane, so the increase in size is fairly minimal.

Then again, with the intended porability of the projector, It's more than possible that I'll just forego the adjustability... It depends on the final dimenions of my light box, which I'll start on this weekend.

*MOST* of the panel, that is...you will always have focus/brightness loss on the extreme corners of the 15" panel with the standard triplet. The 10.6 however is about 50% as tall and 75% as wide as the 15" so you get bright/sharp goodness....that's a cool idea about shifting the lcd panel.

I had perfect corner to corner focus on my standard lens 15" build. I realsise that some members have had issues, but I did not. Therefore I maintain that it is possible to have such focus without issues.

I'm not alone in this, either. Several members have had perfect corner to corner focus on their 15" standard lens builds as well. Build quality, alignment, and keystone correction all play a role in the quality of the focus possible for this lens.

Also, the length/width are not the issue. The distance from the centre point of the lens is. 15" means 7.5" from the centre whether the panel is 4:3 or 16:9.

Well, I spent most of yesterday reorganizing the basement.

I 'found' some more throw for the projector, so now my screen is up to the 120" mark. I don't think that I want it any larger than this, but hey... big is good.

I'm playing with box ideas for hte 10.6. A folded path is tempting, considering that I want to make this projector portable, but I think that I'll stick with the straight path. There's something to be said for simplicity, and besides, I don't have my FS mirror anymore.

Well my box is pretty shoddy...and for movies/games focus is much more easily attained than with windows text so it's not really a deal breaker. Rather than wade through 100's of of posts to see differing views on how to get that perfect corner to corner focus I'd rather just take the lazy way out and get the 10.6" panel .



ok now you're splitting hairs Everyone knows the lcd panel is to be centered on the triplet, so with this basic principle in mind there's no need to speak of it in "distance from the center"...the length/width by design is going to be 2x the distance from the center. Of course it could be moved off axis but that was not the premise of the situation being described.

now i will poop on your thread no more unless I have something nice or constructive to say

@greymalkin: No problem. I have no trouble with people commenting. The way to get perfect corner to corner focus is simple. Make sure that the len and LCD are properly aligned.

Okay, simple in principle, much harder in real life.

And no, I don't think that it is splitting hairs, because I see many references to people saying that you can't get a 15.4" widescreen to focus the corners because it's wider than a 4:3 screen.

Rubbish. The widescreen is wider than the standard screen, yes, But it's shorter. The corners aren't 7.7" from the primary axis instead of 7.5" (Because of a slightly larger diagonal size, NOT because of the width) which I don't think would make enough difference to affect focus that much.

In other news...

My 10.6" panel is here. Yay! Pictures of components coming soon, as soon as I find the USB cable to my camera...

Check under your new panel.

I'm interested in seeing just how much lens/panel shifting you can do with the standard triplet and the 10.6" panel. one day when I build my 10.6" I want to hug it close to the ceiling and shift the lens down a bit so the top of the screen is at the top of my wall.

I hung my 15" up last night and I had to hang it almost in the middle of the room (at the back of the room I got terrible screen door) and also had to hang it about shoulder high to keep from getting nasty keystoning. It looks good now when sitting along the back wall but now I've got this huge ugly eye sore looming above. The 15" with standard lens is really REALLY impractical for my purposes but the 10.6 will make it all better.

As to "how much lens shift"

The width of the new panel is only a little more than the height of a standard 15" LCD. The height of the new panel is pretty much half of the height of a standard 15" panel.

That means that with appropriate fresnels, it should be, in theory, possible to lens shift the projector such that the projector's principal axis passes through the bottom center of the panel, and thus the top of the screen (Or bottom of the screen) is level with the center of the projection lens.

Of course doing so will only be possible with an exceptional high quality build, and will require a colledtor fresnel larger than the LL standard lens.

In practice, however, I think that I would limit the amount of lens shift to about 2" from center. This is at about the limits of using the standard LL fresnelsand produces a satisfactorily large offset. This would still, for example, allow the projector to be suspended from the ceiling, though it's unlikely that you'd be able to walk under it.

As for the location of a standard 15" projector... Yeah, I found that the placement for the 15" put it at about the same distance as where I wanted to sit, if not in front of the seating position. Very inconvenient.

The 10.6" panel will increase the throw of the standard lenses enough to make this work really well, and the options of lens shifting can make the placement of the projector far more flexible.

As promised, a picture.

This is the double-ended 400W 6500K lamp, next to the 10.6" LCD as a comparison. It seems that this lamp will mount in the same overall width, which means that there will be no trouble whatsoever making this fit in the box with the 10.6" panel.
Click to view attachment

I've left the taped on clear piece on the LCD for now. I don't know if I'll strip the AG layer on this LCD, though the "mirrored" layers on the back are certainly fair game. I do, after all want to have a nice bright projection. I'm not going to go for a polariser replacement, that's more than I want to do. I definitely have limits on my personal DIY ambition.

I'm so jealous of that tiny lamp! Mine is so huge! Oh well...I'm not making any hasty decisions until I see what you guys come up with on this little beauty.

Now it's coming down to the hard design questions...

Do I go for the smallest possible box, make it just big enough for the panel with adequate cooling...

Or... Do I make the box just a bit bigger, and leave room for lens shifting...

Most likely it'll be a compromise, but there's a heavy temptation to leave the LL fresnels uncut, and make the interior of the box 12" wide by 10" high.

I've determined that I want a usable focal range from LCD to triplet of 330mm - 380mm. This range should allow me a projected screen size of anywhere from 60" (@376mm) to 144" (@344mm) A 60" screen is still plenty big, and is a throw that I can fit almost anywhere.

I'm thinking that for the front of the box, I may finally start using fibreglass. It'll be much lighter than using MDF, or even (Dare I say it?) plywood. (Sorry, SJ!) Fibreglass will be extremely rigid and strong, and very lightweight. I think I can even manage a few nice-to-have features.

There's a temptation to make this a folded path projector, as well, seeing the kind of success that Pun15her is having with his small box size, Though a "post lens" mirror would probably work more than satisfactorilly, it won't decrease the box size, which is the primary appeal of such a setup. I'm sure that I could get some very interesting results with the fibreglass work as well.

Goodluck if you choose fiberglass, that will be interesting to see the results.

I am personally aiming for a smaller box, this is one of the biggest advantages of the smaller panel. It will be ceiling mounted on about 8foot ceilings... i do not want it to be the "main" focus of the room. The folded design might look odd i think on a ceiling mount due to the dimensions and not be as "pleasing" to the eye.

I have been playing around with the idea of a 10.6" panel projector and I think, with single-fold a 150W setup, I can cram everything into a box thats 11"x17"x7". Getting pretty damn close to commercial pj size. Or Pun's box is only about 15"x10"x12.5" also not bad.

There's a few problems with fiberglass. When sanding you had better have a good respirator and the dust gets into everything. Bigger problem fiberglass loves to burn and it hard to put out. Good thing about the stuff is you can make some really cool designs out of chicken wire then get the resin and fiberglass mat and cover it. Then sand it Nice and smooth then gel coat it to make it look awsome.
I stripped out the interior of a 14' tri hull bass boat and redid the interior from scratch.
Turned out nice but no way I'm doing that again. Every day I worked on it when I got done I looked I'd been floured from head to toe.

Not to worry, I've done lots of work with fibreglass before, I do a lot of car audio stuff. I know the hazards of working with the stuff.

My thought on the design is to make a wood box for the light engine and LCD sled, though I may leave some open areas to cover with fibreglass panels for weight and possibly aesthetics. The front area of the projector, I'll make a lightweight frame, and cover it with fabric. Apply resin to the fabric, then reinforce with glass fibre to the inside. This means an absolute minimum of sanding, since the fabric surface will be reasonably smooth to start with. (I don't LIKE sanding fibreglass. It's hard work, and dangerous. Much better to make it the right shape to begin with.) Some lightweight autobody filler can take care of small imperfections, and it can be sanded and shaped with much less hazard.

The tricky part will be the access openings for reaching the LCD, but that's why the main body of the design will be a more regular box, to facilitate that. I have some different ideas as to the shape and design of the rest, but as long as it stays out of the optics path, I should have a fair degree of freedom with this design.

Actually, if I add a layer of fibreglass on the outside, the 'box' portion can be made of thinner, lighter material. (I'm used to making subwoofer boxes -- this doesn't need NEARLY that level of rigidity.)

I'm also looking forward to painting this, I'm thinking of a really nice high-gloss finish. Maybe I'll paint it in Toyota Super Red II (To match my car.)

Sounds like you have some nice ideas for this one,Supra!
I am looking foreward to seeing this one unfold.
Nice idea fibreglassing over fabric,I too dislike sanding fibreglass.
Cheers P

Ya the good thing about fiberglass is you can make something out really flimsy material then go over it in fiberglass and end up with a really solid structure and the fiberglass doesn't have be all that thick.
That bass boat i did had some major damage to the center v hull where it had been pulled up on the bank and putty wouldn't work there. I had to to apply alot of coats of resin and fiberglass cloth. Then hours of rough blocking to get it back to the original shape. It was a major pain in the laying under the front of that boat with the fiberglass dust covering me like a snow storm.

Well, I've been thinking and sketching ideas for the focal mechanism.

I really like the way that my pro lens build works, with the LCD being the moving part, and the optics all fixed. This allows me the maximum optimisation of the light engine, which I think is at least partially responsible for me being able to get the lumens that I get.

Now in my pro lens build, I've simply made the LCD sled friction-fit inside the box. This works fine for that build, since it's not going anywhere, so It's very rare that I'll have to adjust it, but for this build, I want some portability, and that means that I'll have to have an easier time with focus adjustment. That means that I'll have to be able to easily move the LCD sled without opening up the box, and it will have to be able to take transportation without stuff getting easily broken.

To me, and obvious solution will be drawer slides, however there are some other issues there.

1. Airflow. I need to be able to control airflow so that I can be reasonably certain that the airflow will keep the LCD cool. Drawer slides aren't known for being air-tight...
   
2. Light leakage. In a similar manner to the above, I need to be able to restrict light from getting past the LCD sled, except, of course, through the LCD itself.
   
3. Adjustability. Well, the threaded rod and cabinet knob idea that I had with my original 15" build will work fine here, I think. It's reasonably secure against accidental movement, but allows the position to be adjuted when needed.

Possible solutions include:

Add a piece of Lexan to the LCD sled and mount the fans in the sled itself. In this manner, the airflow is forced through the channel that I want, regardless of the position of the LCD. This provides the most certain cooling of the LCD. Bous advantage that this should help keep the projector quiet as well. Disadvantage is the extra layer of Lexan will drop the overall lumen cound slightly.

Use felt buffers around the sled. This should eliminate light leakage around the sled, and as a bonus might even provide a reasonable air seal. The downside here is that it's something that can and will wear out over the course of time, particularly if focus adjustment is a fairly common thing.

Other. Hey, if you guys have a suggestion, I'm open to hearing it. I'm not going to have a cooling slot in the top or bottom of my projector because of the way that I'm having hte LCD move. If you've got ideas as to how this whole thing can be cooled, let's hear 'em!

At the moment, I'm thinking that the sled with the extra Lexan and maybe baffles for the light is the way that I'm going to go with this. The baffles can double as limiters for the LCD motion as well

What, nobody's got suggestions for me? Oh well, I'll figure out my own solutions.

I gotta wait for slightly warmer weather before I start with the fibreglass. I have some sketches, but I'm more or less stalled until I can get something actually built.

So, the next step will be a light engine. I've been thinking about making this move with the panel for lens shift keystoning, but unless I can make this from aluminum (And even then!) I think it'll end up making the projector too heavy for my design goals.

This then brings into question the whole idea of having adjustable lens shift in the first place. Adjustability is a nice feature to have for portability, but if it has to come at the expense of portability, it's a law of diminishing returns.

I see it as having a couple of options:

1. Make lens shifting adjustable only in steps. Up, Center and Down. This limits the mechanism that I need to build, and keeps the project lightweight.

2. Abandon the idea. This does have merit, in that I can reduce the size of the case signifigantly if there is no need for lens shift provisions. Some keystone can be forgiven in a mobile project, and in fact will probably be unavoidable even with option #1. Well, I'm considering it, but since this is less fun, I think I'll go with option #1 anyway.

So if I'm going to have lens shift keystoning, I have 2 options fot hte light engine.

1. Have the light engine movable to match with the LCD. This will also involve the collimator fresnel moving as well. Probably not a big deal, it will require that the user (presumably me) be smart enough to know that all three elements need to be moved in order for the projector to work as desired, but since I feel that I'm intelligent enough to remember to do that, that should not be a problem. What is a problem with this method is that things that can move are things that can fall out of place when the case is being moved. For this reason, I think I'll stick with a fixed position for these elements.

The LCD needs to be movable in 2 dimensions. Forward and back needs to be infinitely adjustable, up and down can be set positions or infinite, depending on which is easier to acheive.

So this gets me my design parameters for hte back half of the projector. The front half is where the fibreglass will be needed, so I have a starting position.

I thought you didn't have to figure out anything like us mortals....

Sorry SuperGuy.
I havnt delved into the dark magic of lens shifting.
I have been mucking around with theories and ideas for the last year,and thought I would use the 10.6 panel to just build a teeny tiny box,small enough to just move higher or lower on a pole,using maybe an office chair mech,or even a srew piano stool mech.

Looking foreward to seing what comes out of your brain,Supra.
Lens shift idea: Have the fresnels linked to the lamp via 1 or 2 linked bi armed cantilever suspension like setup?
I dont know whether the movement works out in such a planar way.But what the hey,that is what I see lens shift looking like.
Cheers P

I’ve been procrastinating on the same dilemma. I’m settling for fixed lens shift

DJ

I would, also...if needed.
Lens-shifting/keystoning, with all elements adjustable for portability, sounds like more-fuss than I'd care for, however. Exact alignments are 'fussy enough' to setup just-once...<g>
I would think that with a long-throw ('pro', or 18"EFL) that keystoning is less of an issue, in first-place. And, in many-instances, it rather makes more-sense to just 'angle the screen' a bit, rather than hoop-jump with PJ-design.
For my purposes, I'm decided against light-losses incumbant and any such-compromise with the long-throw of my PJ (and the already scanty-lumens of my selected 150w-ceramic) by settling for:
a slightly-angled screen (better, anyway, since my screen will be under/at 4X8, and with PJ behind seating and screen relatively-high, the angle therefore improving the view); and,
a fixed PJ mounting/suspension that can 'lower' when in-use (from a log-truss mounting near-ceiling, with the assumption that when PJ is used, it will be high-enough [and bright-enough -- or I should-be!] not to conk my noggin into it).

I just also-like, in design-stage, to avoid any/all possible lumen/quality loss/'spillage' re: adding-mirrors/shields/any-keystoning/'adjustable'-case/sled/light-engine, etc. that can be 'avoided'. Which brings me to ask: has anyone ever 'quantified' the often-observed 'loss' in PQ due to placing the length of a lamp-arc (such as would occur if using that somewhat-large double-ender as SG illustrated, if in a smaller-case) parallel to panel-length? Is that of 'minor effect', or a real PQ-issue? [In my case, with a G12-base 150w, I can try both-orientations during testing -- but I'm curious if it's actually a restrictive-factor for choosing larger-lamps with these 10.6's, which so inspire appropriately-smaller cases?]

I built my rig so I could very simply rotate my lamp 90° to try both orientations. I may actually try it this calendar year. Seriously, I've gotta dig in anyway so maybe I'll try it and get some luxie readings this weekend. No promises though.

LOL! Well, just because I tend to work things out doesn't mean that I don't run into my own design obstacles!

My initial thought was this: A constant relationship between the lamp, the collimator fresnel and the LCD. This would have the advantage of the LCD always being in the center of the collimated light. The advantage here is that this is where the most lumens are. So when the LCD is moved up and down, so are the lamp and collimator fresnel. So long as they all move at the same rate, there should be no problems at all about changing alignment. The collector fresnel and projection triplet would remain in a fixed position, which also has no alignment issues.

Hmmm...

New possibility.

Perhaps I should go back to the idea of actually moving the projection triplet. Allow the triplet to be shifted up and down, and have it take the collector fresnel with it. I'd discounted this idea before because it messes with the cooling system quite a bit, but this may be a more easily solvable engineering solution. I will be rethinking the cooling system anyway, so a small alteration at this point makes little difference.

This really changes the design for the front end, I guess I'll have to break down my fibreglass molds for another solution, but I think it will work out for the better. Bous advantage here is that I can reduce the size of the back end, since I now only have to deal with moving the LCD in 1 dimension, instead of 2.

More scribbling at the drawing board, it would seem...

I'd like to hear even a subjective-assessment. The orientation of arc, like so-many other potential 'losses' mentioned re: multiple design-elements within forum (mirror-surfaces, shields, close-or-comfy FoV, lens-quality, .2 v .5 frez, additional-surfaces if replacing-polars, etc.)...generally, all are 'noted' in-passing and commented on -- but there's little, even-subjective, admeasurement to 'hang one's hat on' in making design-choices ['weighing'-them].
I default to "avoid 'em all" (and may have-to, since I seriously want to 'make do' with a smaller-case and 150w-engine), but I'm lucky in that my selected-panel (and intended use/room/expectations) allow for doing just-that.
Others, especially with these smaller-panels, begin plans by the selection of a vertical-design, or purchase of a 'monster-lamp', or 'whatever', without accounting for 'downsides' involved, or related 'corners painted into' subsequent to some of those initial-choices. There's a lot of great how-to's and threads/wiki/help in forums, but there still seems a large amount of "oh, didn't know" when it comes to later-reading that a double-folded is problematic, large-bulbs can't rotate in a small-case, typical-controllers can't 'flip' for light to transmit in best-direction, and the like. Once a few of those factors (or 'losses' compared classic 'straight-through') can be assessed/'check-listed', then the early enthusiasm in design-choice can be tempered with a summation of 'here's what this costs-you'.
Or does that make sense? [Much of this is 'nit-picking', anyway...any DIY-PJ beats 'no PJ', and all are fun to optimise...]

You'll get no argument from me that it's best to KISS and avoid as many potential losses/problems as possible.

Also, I pretty much gotta "see it to believe it". If there's a consensus out there I'll run with it though.

If (when) I get to it I'll post comments regarding arc-to-LCD relative orientation in my ploD.

So many details . . . so little time.

I'm definitely a "seeing is believing" guy as well. I'm also a firm believer in scientific method. This means that I try to work out how I think things SHOULD work, then I set about proving/disproving my owh hypothesis.

Well, it's a small step, but it's a step.

I plugged in and tested the 10.6" LCD. I did not put it through an exhaustive dead/stuck pixel test, but it looked good.

For a power supply, I purchased a 12V 1000mA wall wart, pretty much guessing (correctly as it happens) at which plug I needed. For the record, the Genesis 5221 controller takes a 5.5mm OD/2.5mm ID plug, Centre positive. This worked perfectly for me.

Next step WILL be building the light box.

I'm going to go with a precondenser in this project, though there's a great temptation to alter my lens setup by more than just that.

Looking on Surplussshed, I found a pyrex lens (So it'll take the heat) with a 70mm diameter and a 75mm FL.
With this idea, I would place the condenser only a little closer than it's 75mm FL, so that it doesn't quite collimate the light, butwill come close. This should allow me to condense the light from almost a full 90 degrees down quite a bit to cover only as much as the 10.6" LCD will need. In addition, this is an aspheric lens, so it should reduce the problem with dim corners.
Click to view attachment
Alternately, I can place the lens right next to the lamp envelope, and still use the 220mm fresnel, but if I can take this opportunity to eliminate one fresnel, it may work out to the better.

failing that, I spent the $6 on the other lens that people are using as a condenser as well.

Who needs all those extra parts anyhow?

Do you think you will get about half the glowies this way?

Are you going with a large distance from the LCD to fresnel or just a little?

It’s worth a try
I think moving the lamp closer and using the second fresnel may prove better, just my opinion though.

Well, I may not come up with innovative designs, but I think I've proven myself capable of making new twists on old ideas work.

@av: Well, I have 2 factors to balance. One is reducing parts count parts count, the other is overall project size, since I want this unit to be somewhat portable. (I expect that it'll be spending over 1/2 of it's use time in places other than my home.)

@Daz: I think I can still have the lamp relatively close. With a 75mm FL, I think I can have the lamp as close or far as I want with only a minimal impact on the amount of actual captured light.

My reasoning is this:

The condenser lens must be no greater than 75mm from the lamp arc. This is a given. At 75mm, this sill produce a near collimated circle of light 70mm in diameter. This will capture light in a stereo angle of almost 56 degrees from the center of the arc, and this is the WORST CASE for light capture. FWIW, this is better than the amount captured by a circle 15" in diameter at 220mm. As I bring the lens closer to the lamp, to make my light cone larger, it also captures more of the lamp's light.

In other words, with this setup, I expect to capture more light into my 10.6" panel than I would with a 15", an that's without using a collimator fresnel.

I have another adfantage as well. With the lamp arc horizontal, I expect that the precondenser will produce an ellipse, rather than a circular beam patern. This can (and will) be used to maximum advantage with the widescreen apsict ratio.

Last, but certainly not least, I intend to use the lack of a collimator lens to full advantage by placing the collector fresnel further back. This provides an additional lumens advantage, and allows the LCD placement to be more flexible. Since I am again planning on moving the LCD for focus, and leaving the lamp, condenser, fresnel and triplet stationary relative to each other, this distance will be based on the closest that I want to be able to focus my projector. This also makes my projector somewhat self-adjusting. Closer (smaller) screens will get somewhat less lumens, while further (larger) screen will get more lumens. This is nowhere near in proportion to the change in screen size, but every little bit...

Anyway, that's the idea and the plan.

I was just thinking if it was posible to flip the precon and eliminate the first fres. You could get the lamp closer to the lcd. With a lower wattage light like the 150 cdm. I really would like to see your results with this one.