throbber
EXHIBIT 2058
`
`EXHIBIT 2058EXHIBIT 2058
`
`
`
`

`
`From:
`Sent:
`To:
`Subject:
`
`Ying-Moh Liu <yml7245@yahoo.com>
`Saturday, June 27, 2015 6:20 PM
`McCormack, Brian C
`Fw: Lenses for prototype
`
`
`----- Forwarded Message -----
`From: Matt Cowan <mcowan@reald.com>
`To: Ying-Moh Liu <yml7245@yahoo.com>; Lenny Lipton <llipton@reald.com>; Jerry Carollo <JCarollo@creativedis.com>
`Cc: Michael Hoppe <MHoppe@creativedis.com>; Mahir Abrahim <MAbrahim@creativedis.com>; Bill Maffucci
`<BMaffucci@creativedis.com>
`Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 3:53 PM
`Subject: RE: Lenses for prototype
`
`Ying-moh:
`
`
`1. We need a system that will work for both situations. What are the implications of different projection distances and
`different angles? The Clarity is approximately 52' throw and 26' screen width. Lenny can probably dig up exact numbers.
`
`
`2. The throw ratios are complicated by using less pixels of the DMD.
`
`
`
`
`
`if the throw ratio is 1.45:1 using 2048 pixels of the DMD, then using 1628 pixels, the ratio of screen width (usable)
`to distance becomes 1.82:1 Our image is narrower that the maximum that the lens can handle, but our object
`(DMD pixels) are also narrower. You are right that the full width DMD angle at 1.45 is 38 degrees - clearly
`beyond our design target. But using only 1628 pixels, the angle becomes 30.6 degrees (slightly over design). In
`the El Cap theatre the lens setting will be slightly narrower than 1.45 (1.47 I think) which brings the angle below
`30 degrees (by a tiny amount.)
`I don't have the Clarity lens at my finger tips, but the labeled focal range should be something like 40.6mm and
`50.4mm - Lenny can you look at your notes on this?
`
`Maybe I'm not being clear - and we should discuss this on the telephone?
`
`
`3. We would like to design for both flat and scope modes. My suggestion would be to design for 30 degrees in Flat mode
`and all situations will be covered.
`
`
`
`
`
`some theatres are "common height" meaning that the side curtains go out for scope and come in for flat, keeping
`the same height for flat and scope.
`some theatres are "common width", meaning that the top curtain goes up for flat, keeping the same horizontal
`width for flat and scope.
`
`4. Lenny can you look at the Barco lens and figure out dimensions?
`
`I am hoping that our primary design constraint is the 30 degree horizontal angle and we can accommodate Clarity and El
`Cap (different focus positions and zoom lengths) by putting shims on the mounting platform (of something like that). As I
`see it, we will have several different lens settings we need to accommodate, which will drive the Z location of the
`apparatus (distance from the front of the projector). Flat and scope each for El Cap and Clarity. I hope the different throw
`distances (52' and 71') between the two situations can be tuned by mirror pointing and any difference required in radius of
`the mirror can be dialed in.
`
`If the project just got more complicated, then lets have a discussion tomorrow in case I'm missing something.
`
`
`Matt.
`
`1
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2058-1
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`
`
`
`
`From: Ying-Moh Liu [mailto:yml7245@yahoo.com]
`Sent: Thursday, September 28, 2006 6:03 PM
`To: Lenny Lipton; Jerry Carollo; Matt Cowan
`Cc: Michael Hoppe; Mahir Abrahim; Bill Maffucci
`Subject: RE: Lenses for prototype
`
`Lenny and Matt:
`
`I have a few questions related to my optical design setup and would like to get your inputs.
`
`* Would you tell us if we are designing for the Clarity theater or the El Capitan?
`* What size is the Clarity theater screen and what is the throw distance?
`* If we are designing for TR of 1.45-1.8 as Matt suggested, do we keep the throw distance the same
`for both cases?
`* Please check the attached diagram to see if it is what you understand in the lens retract vs TR.
`* For TR of 1.45, I calculated the FOV to be 38 deg. and the focal length to be 32.33mm when
`projecting 1628 pixels wide. f=0.5*1628*0.01368/tan(19)=32.33mm. This focal length is outside of
`your described 50.7-67.8mm. What am I missing? Do you actually project TR of 1.45 in Clarity
`theater?
`* Do we design for the "flat" mode with 1.85:1 aspect ratio?
`*
`
`
`Hope to get your input on the above soon. Thank you.
`
`
`Ying-Moh
`
`Lenny Lipton <llipton@reald.com> wrote:
`Jerry
`
`
`That should have been as follows:
`
`
`This is a good question. The lens on the Barco on my floor which has a zoom
`range of 40.7 - 50.9 mm moves through a little more than 30 mm. The front
`element translates from recessed to flush.
`
`
`The Clarity theater lens which is 50.7 - 67.8 retracts from flush to more than a 45
`mms.
`
`From: Jerry Carollo [mailto:JCarollo@creativedis.com]
`Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 3:55 PM
`To: Matt Cowan; Lenny Lipton
`Cc: Michael Hoppe; Ying-Moh Liu; Mahir Abrahim; Bill Maffucci
`Subject: RE: Lenses for prototype
`
` Matt:
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2058-2
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`

`
`How much does the lens need to move to go from TR 1.45 to 1.8? I think we may have up to 20mm
`space to accommodate the focus change but and the other lens type but we need at the mechanical
`design to know for sure.
`
`
`Thanks
`
`Jerry
`
`
`
`From: Matt Cowan [mailto:mcowan@reald.com]
`Sent: Monday, September 25, 2006 11:09 AM
`To: Jerry Carollo ; Michael Hoppe ; Ying-Moh Liu ; Mahir Abrahim ; Lenny Lipton
`Subject: Lenses for prototype
`
`
`Jerry et al:
`
`
`We will be providing you with two lenses.
`
`
`The primary one we want to work with is 1.45 to 1.8. (I don't have drawings but from memory it is the one with
`the extended hood that needs to be machined off.) The secondary one is the 1.8 to 2.4. The 1.45-1.8 lens is the
`one used essentially all the time in the Clarity theatre.
`
`
`We understand that the intended working cone angle is 30 degrees (full angle) maximum and that this means
`about 1.8:1 actual throw to width ratio. Because we use less than the full width of the DMD, the advertised
`number for the lens represents a wider picture than we actually achieve, so in fact in our operation for flat
`pictures using 1628 of 2048 pixels horizontally, we are at a throw ratio of about 1.5 referencing the full width
`DMD, but equating to 30 degrees full angle.
`
`I hope this is clear - if not perhaps we should have a quick telcon to make sure we are on the same page.
`
`
`One point I was thinking about - Focusing the lens consists of moving it in and out of its mount via a sliding
`mechanism. This will change the actual location in the Z dimension of the end of the lens. Have you allowed for
`adjustment (a one time set-up) in this dimension to accommodate this focus movement? It is probably what is
`also required to accommodate two different lenses.
`
`
`Matt.
`***********************************************************************************************
`This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely
`for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed and may
`contain confidential and privileged information. No one else is authorized to
`distribute, forward, print, copy or act upon any information contained in this email.
`If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email
`and destroy all copies of the original message.
`************************************************************************************************
`
`
`
`Do you Yahoo!?
`Get on board. You're invited to try the new Yahoo! Mail.
`
`
`3
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2058-3
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket