An LED of a different thought

if it's just to digitise you don't need such a large projected image. just enough to fill the camera's image sensor.

and for that you don't need such a strong light source

substitute in a 80W car headlamp or other cheap halogen bulb and focus the image as near to the projector as as you can.

How are you planning to synchronise the film and the digitising frame rates?

this project might be interesting.

Bingo! Good find :)

For once again in my illustrious career, I've re-invented something cool :)

Clifford Heath

See this too, from above link... nicer pictures

I certainly need a pair of these glasses too! George H.

For once, something that *genuinely* deserves to be termed, "awesome"!

-- This message may be freely reproduced without limit or charge only via the Usenet protocol. Reproduction in whole or part through other protocols, whether for profit or not, is conditional upon a charge of GBP10.00 per reproduction. Publication in this manner via non-Usenet protocols constitutes acceptance of this condition.

No, they're passive. They use finely tuned optical filters to separate slightly different wavelengths for each eye. Don't know the numbers. There's undoubtedly a patent or two though.

--Spehro Pefhany

Cursitor Doom wrote in news:q7lnck$s8u$ snipped-for-privacy@dont-email.me:

Not really. So far all of the movies I attended that were digitally projected had artifacts. That I noticed. Most would likely not notice them, but I came from General Instrument.