`EXHIBIT 2125
`
`
`
`
`
`RE: Screen Size
`
`From:
`Lenny Lipton <"/o=reald/ou=first administrative group/cn=recipients/cn=llipton">
`To:
`Matt Cowan <"matt cowan">, Jerry Carollo <jcarollo@creativedis.com>
`Cc:
`Ying-Moh Liu <yml7245@yahoo.com>, Mahir Abrahim <mabrahim@creativedis.com>, Michael Hoppe
`<mhoppe@creativedis.com>
`Date:
`Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:37:17 -0700
`
`Looking at the lens on the Barco in the lab I see a very much larger front element.
`
`
`From: Matt Cowan
`Sent: Fri 9/8/2006 3:19 PM
`To: Jerry Carollo; Lenny Lipton
`Cc: Ying-Moh Liu; Mahir Abrahim; Michael Hoppe
`Subject: RE: Screen Size
`
`
`
`Jerry:
`
`I think these numbers are "good". 55' and 2:1
`
`
`Can you tell me what the "damage" is if we take this design and put it on a 2.2 throw ratio and a 1.6 ratio?
`
`
`clearly we need to pick a starting point and 2.0 is good. But, practicality says we will need to address a
`continuum of throws, centering in this area. Several SKU's will probably work, but would like some
`visibility on the tolerance that this design might allow.
`
`(I do understand that we are in somewhat uncharted water at the moment.)
`
`
`Matt.
`
`
`From: Jerry Carollo [mailto:JCarollo@creativedis.com]
`Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 6:06 PM
`To: Matt Cowan; Lenny Lipton
`Cc: Ying-Moh Liu; Mahir Abrahim; Michael Hoppe
`Subject: RE: Screen Size
`
`Matt:
`
`
`For this proof of concept we are looking at 55ft screen width and throw ratio of 2:1 for the first design. Is
`this OK?
`
`
`Jerry
`
`From: Matt Cowan [mailto:mcowan@reald.com]
`Sent: Friday, September 08, 2006 2:42 PM
`To: Lenny Lipton; Jerry Carollo
`
`
`
`
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2125-1
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`
`
`Cc: Ying-Moh Liu; Mahir Abrahim; Michael Hoppe
`Subject: RE: Screen Size
`
`
`
`Typical - if there is such a thing - throw distance to acreen width is between 1.6:1 and 2.2:1that covers 75 % of the
`population. I think the ratio at these distances is more useful than screen size - but our target size is probably 55 feet
`wide.
`
`If you design for throw ratio of 2.0 what happens at 1.8 and 2.2?
`
`Matt.
`
` -----Original Message-----
`From: Lenny Lipton
`Sent: Fri Sep 08 09:06:47 2006
`To: Jerry Carollo
`Cc: Ying-Moh Liu; Mahir Abrahim; Michael Hoppe; Matt Cowan
`Subject: RE: Screen Size
`
`Jerry,
`
`I'd like to hear from my partner Matt on this -- he is traveling but will get this message.
`
`With the BPS in place we should be able to do a 60 foot wide screen maximum. We arer presently limited to 47 feet
`in 'scope.
`
`________________________________
`
`From: Jerry Carollo [mailto:JCarollo@creativedis.com]
`Sent: Fri 9/8/2006 7:30 AM
`To: Lenny Lipton
`Cc: Ying-Moh Liu; Mahir Abrahim; Michael Hoppe
`Subject: Screen Size
`
`Lenny:
`
`
`
`
`
`Could you please confirm if we should design the system for a nominal 47ft (~14.3m)width screen and at what
`distance? In our design, we assumed a 25m wide screen, which is much larger than 14.3m. The difference may
`cause significant change to the turning mirror radius and other performance parameters, such as pixel offset, etc.
`
`
`
`Thanks
`
`
`
`jerry
`
`
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2125-2
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
`
`
`
`***********************************************************************************************
`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.
`************************************************************************************************
`
`REALD INC.
`Exhibit 2125-3
`MASTERIMAGE 3D, et al. v REALD INC.
`IPR2015-00035
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
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.
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.
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
