This document discusses micro mirror display technology, specifically digital micromirror devices (DMD). It provides an introduction to DMDs, describing their operation using arrays of tiny micromirrors that can rotate to on and off positions. The document outlines the performance history and comparisons of DMDs, noting improvements over time. It lists several applications of DMD technology, such as digital light processing, 3D displays, and lithography.

1. P R E S E N T E D B Y -
M A N A S H P R A T I M B E Z B A R U A H
B U L B U L B R A H M A
G O U R I S H A N K A R C H E T I A
MICRO MIRROR DISPLAY
TECHNOLOGY

2. CONTENTS
 INTRODUCTION
 OPERATION
 PERFORMANCE HISTORY
 PERFORMANCE COMPARISION
 APPLICATIONS
 SUMMARY
 REFERENCES

3. INTRODUCTION
• It is a combination of both Opto
Mechanical and Electro mechanical
Elements.
• Also known as MOEMS
(Micro-Opto-Electromechanical
System).
• The DMD was first developed by
Solid state physicist Dr. Larry
Hornbeck in the year 1987.

4. • It consists of array of hundreds to millions of tiny micromirrors.
(10 microns in size = one tenth size of human hair).
• Each micromirror consists of CMOS memory cell.
• The micromirror is a digital two-state device (operated at either +12° or -12°).
 - “1” state for +12°.
 - “0” state for -12°.
 The mirrors can be individually rotated ±10-12°, to an on or off state.

5. OPERATION
o “1” or “0” will be loaded into the
memory cell for each micromirror.
o A micromirror clocking pulses is
then applied, the mirror will update
+12 or -12 degree.
o In a typical setup,
- a light source (e.g. LED,
LASER, Lamp etc.) will illuminate the
DMD with an angle of 24°.
- Each pixel then directs a
light to one of the two output ports.

6. PERFORMANCE HISTORY
Several years ago mirror pitch was reduced from 17um to 13.7um, allowing smaller
device footprints and associated cost.
The most recent advances have been to,
1) increase mirror tilt from +/- 10 degrees to +/-12 degrees, enabling increased optical
efficiency,
2) increase projector contrast ratio to >1000:1 by using dark (non-reflecting)
metal layers below each mirror,

7. PERFORMANCE COMPARISION
 For many potential applications DMD has no current rival
 LCD panels used in display applications have orders of magnitude slower pixel
response than DMD and are operated in analog mode.
 LCD technology is very wavelength dependent and is not considered robust under
UV illumination.
 Ferroelectric LCD (FLCD) technology is much less mature and difficult to fabricate,
but provides binary switching below 100us. While this is still several times slower
than DMD.

8. • D I G I TA L L I G T P R O C E S S I N G
• D I G I TA L F I D E L I T Y
• 3 D D I S P L AY
• S C I E N T I F I C T O O L S
• V O L U M E T R I C D I S P L AY S
• L I T H O G R A P G Y A P P L I C AT I O N S
• B R O A D B A N D O P E R AT I O N S
• H I G H I N T E N S I T Y A N D L A S E R O P E R AT I O N S
H O L O G R A P H Y A N D D ATA S T O R A G E
APPLICATIONS

9. SUMMARY
 DLP technology is now firmly established in a variety of projection display
products, enabling brilliant images through digital light switch solutions.
 Many new DMD applications beyond projection display are emerging, and are
being enabled through general use DMD products that are now available to
developers.
 These DMD-based innovations will result in a portfolio of exciting new
products with the potential to disrupt multiple industries.

10. REFERENCE
1. D. Doherty, G. Hewlett, “Phased Reset Timing for Improved Digital Micromirror Device
(DMD) Brightness,” SID Symposium Digest, Vol. 29, (1998), p. 125.
2. M.R. Douglass, “Lifetime Estimates and Unique Failure Mechanisms of the Digital
Micromirror Device,” IEEE International Reliability Physics Symposium, 36th Annual, pp.
9-16, April 1998.
3. L. Yoder, W. Duncan, E.M. Koontz, J. So, T. Bartlett, B. Lee, B. Sawyers, D.A. Powell, P.
Rancuret, “DLPTM Technology: Applications in Optical Networking,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 4457
(2001), pp. 54-61.
4. R.S. Nesbitt, S.L. Smith, R.A. Molnar, S.A. Benton, “Holographic recording using a Digital
Micromirror Device,” Proc. SPIE, Vol. 3637 (1999).
5. M. Liang, R.L. Stehr, A.W. Krause, Confocal pattern period in multiple-aperture confocal
imaging systems with coherent illumination, Opt. Lett. 22, pp. 751-753, 1997.
6. R.A. DeVerse, R.M. Hammaker, W.G. Fateley, “Realization of the Hadamard Multiplex
Advantage Using a Programmable Optical Mask in a Dispersive Flat-Field Near-Infrared
Spectrometer,” Applied Spectroscopy, Vol. 54, No. 12, (2000), pp. 1751-8.