That Old Chestnut Digital Projectors.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

You may wonder what the title & description have to do with each other??? Bear with me all will be explained.

Yesterday was The International Day of Older Persons. The day before my phone rang It was one of the voluteers at our local elderly care home "could I do a show at short notice". Panic Panic, I hadn't done a public show for about 6 months, had sold my DLP projector and hadn't tried my LCD projector on a one hour show. I agreed, the carer was also a member of the WI and had a list of the shows I had. She requested the WW2 re-enactment the Hunton Steam Fair & The 2009 Wensleydale Agricultural Show, so I copied them into a separate folder on my desktop in readiness. As my projector hadn't had a decent trial, I borrowed the club's Canon as a back up.

TIDOP day dawned and at lunch time I loaded the car and we made our way to the care home, I was 45 minutes early as it takes at least 30 minutes to set up, and not having seen the venue before I wanted to ensure a smooth show. Unfortunately, my audience was already sat awaiting my arrival. The room was called the day room and had windows on three sides with a partition screening the largest. However the room was still fairly light so I was sceptical the pictures could be given justice in the prevailing conditions. My wife & I unpacked the gear, tripod, laptop, speakers & the projector a SonyVPL-EX5 LCD, bought last year from Amazon for just over £200. I connected the equipment and switched on, set the LT to CRT which switces off the LT screen & sends the picture to the projector. My desktop appeared & after adusting the screen position & focus I had the best picture I had seen from a digital projector. A quick trip to the back of the room to make sure it was ok from there, excellent. Finally a sound check through my new Aego M series speakers, panic, no sound. Quick check of the connections, the wife pointed out I hadn't switched on the boom box.

I ran the 4 shows through, giveing a brief description of their content between each one & ended with the WW2 show. Although a couple of the residents were asleep when I switched the lights back on the rest were very happy with what they had seen.

Now the point of the topic, with all the new innovations that appear in the ever expanding list of versions of PTE, a basic show, using basic equipment can still provide good entertainment value. The LCD projector provided a much brighter image in the conditions that my previous DLP projector. The only adverse condition seen, was the jerky scrolling text in a couple of the shows, which I'm not sure was the fault of either the projecter, LT, or just the fact I had forgotton to tension the screen and it was a touch ripply.

Another thought came to mind about aspect ratio, which I have crossed swords with a number of members who are trying to push wide screen. My projector is 4-3, my screen is 1.5 metres wide, which is the longest I can get in the car comfortably. If I had been showing in widescreen, the picture would be a much smaller area. So the message is, don't be pushed into something just because it's new, you can still give a great deal of enjoyment using old technology.

Yachtsman1

[Lin Evans]

Hi Eric,

Congratulations on a successful venture back into slideshow projection. I think your conclusions might be "if it's not broke - don't fix it!" The tried and true works wonders and it's always more comforting to know that our equipment will deliver as expected.

I'm perplexed as well about the recent move to wide screen aspect ratios, especially since the vast majority of our cameras, etc., are designed to shoot in either 3:2 or 4:3 mode. Even though the newest dSLR's support capture in wide aspect ratios, it requires "wasting" a good portion of the CCD or CMOS sensor's native capture.

I strongly suspect that the move toward 16:9 or 16:10 is a concession to the movie and video industry. Actually, it makes it a bit awkward in my opinion to have to crop those images to be used in slideshows from all my photo archives and shoot wide to accommodate the anticipated need for cropping for future use. Medium formats have traditionally been "square" so the recent fascination with wide definitely seems to come from the movie and video industry which seems to be driving manufacturing these days.

Again, congratulations on a successful experience. You'll have to consider serving some strong tea to wake up those few old reprobates who insist on sleeping through your shows!

Best regards,

Lin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Lin

You've practically repeated what i said a few weeks ago about widescreen being pushed by the film industry, I can only assume some people must have different vision, as having to look at a widescreen is like watching a tennis match. Incidentally the lady on the left was asleep when i arrived & had to be woken when I was leaving. It was a satisfying afternoon and I can only hope when I'm in that condition some kindly soul will come along and do the same.

Off topic. if you remember a few weeks ago someone came up with a show comprised of stills from old movies, Bogey Bacall & someone else. I'm haveing a go at the same idea using Gable Gardner & Grant as a basis. If anyone knows a good source of film stills containing these I would be obliged.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

[Ken Cox]

Hi Lin

You've practically repeated what i said a few weeks ago about widescreen being pushed by the film industry, I can only assume some people must have different vision, as having to look at a widescreen is like watching a tennis match. Incidentally the lady on the left was asleep when i arrived & had to be woken when I was leaving. It was a satisfying afternoon and I can only hope when I'm in that condition some kindly soul will come along and do the same.

Off topic. if you remember a few weeks ago someone came up with a show comprised of stills from old movies, Bogey Bacall & someone else. I'm haveing a go at the same idea using Gable Gardner & Grant as a basis. If anyone knows a good source of film stills containing these I would be obliged.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

Eric

check you email in 5 mins

a powerpoint show + i ripped it for picts

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Thanks Ken

Regards Eric

[davegee]

In reply to Lin's comments above:

Please consider the 2 configurations below which represent a 3:2 image being projected onto the same screen at the same physical size by firstly a 1024x768 projector and secondly by a 1920x768 projector.

The end result is exactly the same when you consider ONLY the image size on screen.

BUT, consider this: The 1024x768 projector is throwing 699,050 pixels at the screen (3:2 image fit to a 1024x768 frame) while the 1920x1080 projector is throwing 1,749,600 pixels at the screen (3:2 image fit to a 1080 high frame).

If you have never compared the results obtained this way I suggest that a rethink might be in order.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi Dave,

I'm not sure where you got the 273,065 pixel figure. A 1024x768 image produces 786,432 pixels. It can be interpolated to any size, but that's not the point I was making. Actually, my point has nothing to do with 1024x768 "or" 1920x1080. It has to do with the necessity of loosing pixels (image information) in a crop regardless of the actual pixel count for the final display.

The point is to "fill" the screen without having a border surrounding the image and without excess image content loss. In order to fill a 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio with a 3:2 image capture, you absolutely "must" either loose significant pixels or distort the image. I often display my slideshows at four megapixel resolution (2560x1600) at 8:5 aspect ratio and in the past have displayed them on my own display and for clients at 9.2 megapixels.

I don't use projectors - actually, even when displaying for clients I either used a high resolution LCD or CRT display or a large screen television.

You are absolutely correct that it's possible to have the entire image displayed on screen, but with a 3:2, or 4:3 aspect ratio original capture, there will be an unwanted black border on the horizontal aspect if one fills the screen vertically, or a major crop in the vertical aspect if one fills the screen horizontally with the native capture. Neither, to me, are desirable outcomes thus the need to "crop" my images. Fortunately, PTE Version 6 allows that without actually affecting the original or without the need to perform the crop outside PTE and have additional saved images.

Best regards,

Lin

In reply to Lin's comments above:

Please consider the 2 configurations below which represent a 3:2 image being projected onto the same screen at the same physical size by firstly a 1024x768 projector and secondly by a 1920x768 projector.

The end result is exactly the same when you consider ONLY the image size on screen.

BUT, consider this: The 1024x768 projector is throwing 273,065 pixels at the screen (3:2 image fit to a 1024x768 frame) while the 1920x1080 projector is throwing 1,749,600 pixels at the screen (3:2 image fit to a 1080 high frame).

If you have never compared the results obtained this way I suggest that a rethink might be in order.

DG

[davegee]

Apologies, the figure should have been 699,050 (1024x683) for a 3:2 in 1024x768.

I was thinking of your mention of 4:3 and 3:2 and DSLRs.

You either have to crop the DSLR image to suit the 4:3 and waste original pixels or fit the DSLR image to the 1024x768 frame with black bands.

In 1920x1080 the DSLR fits the height and NOT the width - it makes a big difference.

1024x683 vs 1620x1080.

We DO use projectors and we HAVE done the comparison.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi Dave,

Right, but it depends on the dSLR. My pro body E3 Olympus shoots native at 4:3 while my pro body Canons, Nikon and my Sigma dSLR's shoot native 3:2. The majority of older digicams shoot 4:3 with the option of using only part of the sensor's capture (i.e., sensor crop) for 3:2.

The issues about projectors are important to those using them for displaying their images, but in all fairness, the "majority" of presentation slideshow software users don't really use projectors at all, but rather create slideshows to be displayed either on a computer via executable or video mode, or on a television screen via DVD, BlueRay or HDMI connect. Projectors (Beamers) are primarily the tool of choice for the business executive using PowerPoint shows or some AVI enthusiasts for shows, etc. They seem to be more popular among AV clubs (not speaking from experience here) to me. I suspect that this practice may change as very good LED (not LCD or Plasma) large screen televisions become popular and prices go down accordingly.

Best regards,

Lin

You either have to crop the DSLR image to suit the 4:3 and waste original pixels or fit the DSLR image to the 1024x768 frame with black bands.

In 1920x1080 the DSLR fits the height and NOT the width - it makes a big difference.

1024x683 vs 1620x1080.

We DO use projectors and we HAVE done the comparison.

DG

[davegee]

Hi Lin,

I should have mentioned Olympus and you are correct.

But I did a demo of aspect ratio / resolution for my own club and as a build I did a poll of the types of cameras being used.

Out of 100 or so members present there was one person using a pointand shot (bridge) camera and 99 or so persons using 3:2 DSLRs.

No one was using Olympus.

I can't imagine 100 plus people huddling around a TV monitor of any description or size and even if there was one big enough we would have no place to store it from one Thursday to the next.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi Dave,

Storage could definitely be an issue if your club rents a space and has no way to transport a 52" display back and forth. I forget that in the U.K. you don't have lots of vans and pickup trucks like we have here in the states. Here, it would be no problem at all to transport even a 60" LED wide screen back and forth.

As for 100 people huddling around a wide screen, actually that wouldn't be necessary. With a 52 inch display it's quite comfortable to see from a distance of even 40 feet or more. Twenty chairs across by five deep seat 100 people and that would only create a viewing distance of around 22 feet or so for those in the back row. If you only seat 10 in a row you could still fit comfortably into the approximately 40 feet space. My business customers often have large conference rooms with as many as 150 people watching 50" plasma displays. The LED displays can be watched comfortably from even very wide angles without loss of image quality or brightness. The brightness factor is "soooo" much better on an LED display than on virtually "any" projector that they can be easily seen without even killing the lights. Also there is no loss of seating space for the location of the projector.

It's difficult to step outside one's comfort zone of use, but even with the very best and brightest high resolution projectors my clients have had (IBM, Hewlett-Packard, etc.) if you enlarge sufficiently to make a really nice sized display, the brightness level is so diminished that the room must be nearly dark to accommodate a decent image. It may not be a solution for your club, but I suspect it could be for many.

Yes, of course there are many more users of 3:2 than 4:3 dSLR's and even some of the newer digicams offer 3:2 which makes it even more puzzling for me that displays are all going wide screen. Small sensor digicam users "far" outnumber dSLR users in the great scheme of things, but probably serious AV people have a much greater preponderance of dSLR owners.

It's as if the manufacturer's believe that computer users are using their displays more for watching DVD's or BluRay than for computing or displaying photographs. Perhaps gaming is partially driving manufacturing - who really knows?

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

I should have mentioned Olympus and you are correct.

But I did a demo of aspect ratio / resolution for my own club and as a build I did a poll of the types of cameras being used.

Out of 100 or so members present there was one person using a pointand shot (bridge) camera and 99 or so persons using 3:2 DSLRs.

No one was using Olympus.

I can't imagine 100 plus people huddling around a TV monitor of any description or size and even if there was one big enough we would have no place to store it from one Thursday to the next.

DG

[davegee]

Hi Lin,

When we were buying a new projector the dilema was that the manufacturers were OBVIOUSLY catering for HD presentation of various sources which did NOT include camera clubs or AV clubs. So our choice was driven by what was available and which format would best present a 3:2 image.

The choice came down to a 4:3 1400x1050 or a 16:9 1920x1080.

For 4:3 images there is not a lot of difference but for any image between 4:3 and 16:9 the difference in thepixel count increases with the aspect ratio. (The image gets smaller in the 4:3 frame and bigger in the 16:9 frame).

Since, in our situation, we were looking to increase QUALITY as well as resolution it was "no contest".

4:3 image on a 1400x1050 projector= 1470000 pixels

4:3 image on a 1920x1080 projector= 1555200 pixels

Not a lot of difference.

16:9 image on a 1400x1050 projector= 1102500 pixels

16:9 image on a 1920x1080 projector= 2073600 pixels

That's twice the number of pixels being thrown at the screen for the same image. You cannot compare a 16:9 image sized for 1400x1050 with a 16:9 image sized for 1920x1080 (quality wise). You spoke of "throwing away" portions of images - what about the amount of resolution being thrown away when sizing for smaller projectors? No amount of sharpening can recover the lost resolution. Even if you use full camera res in your PTE show then it is interpolated down by PTE or your graphics card etc.

In a 1920x1080 show presented on a 1920x1080 laptop shown through a 1920x1080 projector there is NO interpolation taking place.

No one FORCES anyone to use the FULL 16:9 area of the projector but it's there if required for panoramics and if the widest image in a competition is, for instance, 3:2 then the width of the screen can be filled with a 3:2 image.

BTW - PTE is our chosen tool for presentation of images in competition.

Your suggestion of transporting a large TV on a weekly basis is, let's face it, unrealistic.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

I understand your reasoning for purchasing the 1920x1080 projector for the club's purposes and that having a larger pixel count image allows for better viewing and a better projected image. I also understand that transporting a large, wide screen display would not work for you, even though it would be no big issue for most here in the US.

Just for the record though, and to avoid confusing the reader, throwing away pixels does not greatly affect optical resolution. It's very common for people to confuse the term "resolution" with pixel count and that's the fault of marketing and advertising in the digital camera business.

Optical resolution is measured by either lines per image height (in the case of digital cameras) or by counted line pairs per mm in film captures. This value is determined by a combination of lens quality and the number of photosites on the sensor used to "directly" capture the light values across the subject. It is only indirectly related to the number of display pixels used to display an image. So the number of and configuration of photosites (sensor pixels) largely determine optical resolution since for practical purposes, all lenses used on modern cameras have greater optical resolution capabilities than the sensors behind them have.

As an example, my Foveon based Sigma SD14 dSLR only creates a 4.7 megapixel display, but the optical resolution is equal in black and white resolution to a 10 megapixel Canon or Nikon capture and the color resolution is greater than that of a 12 megapixel Canon or Nikon capture. Why? Because the Foveon sensor uses over 14 million photosites in a three dimensional array with all three RGB values collected at one relative display pixel location to create each single display pixel, and it captures all three RGB values at this single loci. From these 14 million RGB values, the camera produces a 4.7 megapixel image of high optical resolution. A Nikon, Canon, Olympus, etc., dSLR uses, in a "10 megapixel capture," 10 million CFA (color filter array) photosites on their sensor and interpolates 2/3 of the red and blue color values by averaging color values obtained from adjacent pixels. So all CFA captures (all digital cameras except Sigma) are initially "interpolated."

A good example of the non-linear relationship between display pixel count and optical resolution can be seen by examining the Hubble telescope's WFC (wide field channel) camera which produces a four megapixel display and its HRC (high-resolution channel) camera which produces a one megapixel display. The HRC has "much" greater optical resolution than the WFC even though the WFC produces a four megapixel image versus the one megapixel image of the HFC.

To understand why pixel count has only a bit to do with optical resolution, think of a capture make using photomicroscopy. A one megapixel capture made through the lens of an 800x microscope has infinitely more resolution than a 100 megapixel capture of the same subject made without the microscope. So throwing out pixels in terms of pixel count by downsampling does not greatly affect optical resolution. The primary factor in optical resolution was determined at the time of image capture and only indirectly affected by downsampling or upsampling.

This, of course, is not to be confused with image size and one's ability to "see" this resolution based on our own human visual acuity. We can see a large image much better than a small image from a distance, and it's really the image size and not the pixel count per se which is important. Of course an image made with a greater number of pixels will look "sharper" to us and we will be able to see it better when it is larger (i.e., more pixels) from a given distance than a comparable smaller image, even if the smaller image has greater optical resolution.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

When we were buying a new projector the dilema was that the manufacturers were OBVIOUSLY catering for HD presentation of various sources which did NOT include camera clubs or AV clubs. So our choice was driven by what was available and which format would best present a 3:2 image.

The choice came down to a 4:3 1400x1050 or a 16:9 1920x1080.

For 4:3 images there is not a lot of difference but for any image between 4:3 and 16:9 the difference in thepixel count increases with the aspect ratio. (The image gets smaller in the 4:3 frame and bigger in the 16:9 frame).

Since, in our situation, we were looking to increase QUALITY as well as resolution it was "no contest".

4:3 image on a 1400x1050 projector= 1470000 pixels

4:3 image on a 1920x1080 projector= 1555200 pixels

Not a lot of difference.

16:9 image on a 1400x1050 projector= 1102500 pixels

16:9 image on a 1920x1080 projector= 2073600 pixels

That's twice the number of pixels being thrown at the screen for the same image. You cannot compare a 16:9 image sized for 1400x1050 with a 16:9 image sized for 1920x1080 (quality wise). You spoke of "throwing away" portions of images - what about the amount of resolution being thrown away when sizing for smaller projectors? No amount of sharpening can recover the lost resolution. Even if you use full camera res in your PTE show then it is interpolated down by PTE or your graphics card etc.

In a 1920x1080 show presented on a 1920x1080 laptop shown through a 1920x1080 projector there is NO interpolation taking place.

No one FORCES anyone to use the FULL 16:9 area of the projector but it's there if required for panoramics and if the widest image in a competition is, for instance, 3:2 then the width of the screen can be filled with a 3:2 image.

BTW - PTE is our chosen tool for presentation of images in competition.

Your suggestion of transporting a large TV on a weekly basis is, let's face it, unrealistic.

DG

[davegee]

Hi Lin,

I fail to understand why transporting a large screen TV in your part of the world is any different from transporting a large screen TV in my part of the world?

On the other issue, and to cut a long story short, if you have never compared a 16:9 image reduced to 1024x576 (projected on a 1024x768 projector) with the same image reduced to 1920x1080 (projected on a 1920x1080 projector) and projected at the same PHYSICAL dimensions then I wouldn't expect you to understand.

DG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I think this topic has gone beyond what I envisaged when first posted. I have a 1.5 metre screen my projecter shows 4-3 images which I believe displays more picture area than the same circumstances if the slides are sized at 16-9. What is known as a "no brainer" in modern parlance?

Yachtsman1

[Lin Evans]

Hi Dave,

Believe me, it's different because nearly every other household in the U.S. area where I live has either a pickup truck or van which I see "very few" of in the U.K. I've traveled extensively in the U.K. and Europe and you just don't have these larger vehicles which are commonplace here. Transporting a large flat screen here is simple. Not a problem in any way. I've hauled dozens of them for friends with absolutely zero problems or difficulty.

In my part of the U.S., hauling a wide screen TV back and forth to a club meeting is as simple as hauling a sack of groceries in the trunk of a typical auto in the U.K. I typically load and carry 500 pound lawn tractors, snow blowers, bails of hay, motorcycles, ATV's and so on every month. I'm "typical" for my area. Drive down my road and you will find perhaps three passenger cars, a dozen large SUV's (suburban utility vehicles) half a dozen vans and a dozen 3/4 to 1 ton pickup trucks and about half of them have camper shells.

I do understand, I just don't care to use a projector when a wide screen TV is available. I have used them to display PTE shows, but I much prefer using a much brighter high resolution (1080p) large screen which doesn't require dimming the lights or setting up the projector on a table and finding either a convenient wall or using a screen. The majority of my clients have stopped using projectors and have gone instead to big screen LCD or Plasma displays. The ones who haven't yet done so are waiting for the much improved (over LCD and Plasma) LED displays which are fantastic.

My complaint is not about one's preference between a large screen display or projector, thats a personal choice and preference; nothing more. It's about the fact that as a photographer I dislike having to crop my images to fit a non-standard size. It's non-standard because neither dSLR's nor digicams which constitute the vast majority of the formats I use (I also shoot medium format film) are configured for 16:9/16:10. I'm forced to either compose wider than I like or crop away portions of an image I don't wish to loose. If I shoot wide, I'm wasting pixels and I "need" all the pixels I can get because the vast majority of my work is telephoto. If I don't shoot wide then I must totally rethink a shooting style I've developed over more than 50 years of photography and train my brain to see differently.

I have nothing against projectors; I simply prefer the large screen display instead.

Best regards,

Lin

[Henri.R]

I think this topic has gone beyond what I envisaged when first posted. I have a 1.5 metre screen my projecter shows 4-3 images which I believe displays more picture area than the same circumstances if the slides are sized at 16-9. What is known as a "no brainer" in modern parlance?

Yachtsman1

OK Eric, maybe we can ask some practical questions to Lin Evans....

Hi Lin,

So you prefer a big led screen and have no trouble transporting it all over the country; so far so good.

Question 1.

Don't you also enjoy a camera club in the USA? You are talking about clients, what kind of clients? Businessmen or artists or musea?

Question 2.

The experience of sitting in the dark with a good projection-screen and your photofriends around you is a psychological experience not to compare with using a backlight display in a normally lighted room. And then I'm speaking of emotions, I think... I don't know much of psychology, but being an TV producer/director for many years I feel the difference.

So you never use your PtE-shows with a projector this way? Would be a pity, because I think you miss something.

I can fully understand that Yachtman's 1024/768 is very satisfying in cameraclub conditions!

Question 3.

A more technical one. What's the size and weight of this giant screens you're using there? Is it always 16-9? Yachtman is talking of 4-3 shows, and I also have a lot of PtE-shows in this format. Please, can you give this numbers in cm's and kilograms too? Thank you.

Question 4.

What are you or your clients using to provide this screens with slideshows; laptops, a complete computer, blueray players or something else what also add to the weight you have to transport?

Question 5.

Last question: is the sound output of a led screen sufficient in a small hall, or do you have to use an extra sound rig?

Would be very nice to read your answers, so thank you in advance..

Regards,

Henri.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Henri,

I'll try to answer your questions.

1. No camera club - there are some, but I'm not a member of one though I am a professional photographer. My clients are both businessmen and artists. Many are owners of galleries. Some are fortune 50 clients (IBM, Hewlett-Packard, etc.).

2. I have used PTE with projectors including high resolution projectors, but I prefer the big screen display.

The advantage of the big screen display is that it "can" be used either in darkness or in a lighted room. The same can't be said of the projector. The projector works fine; it's just not my preference nor the preference of most of my clients.

3. The size and weight varies among my customers. Typically, a 56 inch screen (142 cm) screen weight is about 87 pounds (39.46 kg) on the heavy side, to about 60 pounds on the light side. Different technologies (Plasma - heavier - LCD medium - LED light) have different weights.

They are always wide screen - never 4:3 or 3:2 - and yes, I prefer 4:2 or 3:2 but unfortunately wide screens are wide screens with wide aspect ratios.

4. Sometimes a laptop and many times the client has their own system (desktop) already connected for display.

5. Yes, the sound output is very much equal to or better than from a projector.

There is no question that a small projector and laptop combination is lighter than a big screen and easier for some to transport, especially where large SUV's, pickup trucks and vans are not common as in the U.K. and Europe. For my purpose it's a non issue. I can transport a big screen tv as easily as transporting a cup of tea. Most of those with whom I work have no problems at all transporting big screen tv's.

I know how difficult it is for a private citizen to transport large, heavy items in many places in Europe and the UK. I have had the experience of having to transport 300 pound (136 kg) computer tape libraries to demo to clients in Germany, Italy, France, the U.K. and in Asia. We had much difficulty renting a van suitable for this purpose. Here, almost every household in my vicinity could do this easily with their private vehicles.

It's not a question of which is better, it's a question of preference for me. I'm surprised that there are so many debates about it.

Best regards,

Lin

OK Eric, maybe we can ask some practical questions to Lin Evans....

Hi Lin,

So you prefer a big led screen and have no trouble transporting it all over the country; so far so good.

Question 1.

Don't you also enjoy a camera club in the USA? You are talking about clients, what kind of clients? Businessmen or artists or musea?

Question 2.

The experience of sitting in the dark with a good projection-screen and your photofriends around you is a psychological experience not to compare with using a backlight display in a normally lighted room. And then I'm speaking of emotions, I think... I don't know much of psychology, but being an TV producer/director for many years I feel the difference.

So you never use your PtE-shows with a projector this way? Would be a pity, because I think you miss something.

I can fully understand that Yachtman's 1024/768 is very satisfying in cameraclub conditions!

Question 3.

A more technical one. What's the size and weight of this giant screens you're using there? Is it always 16-9? Yachtman is talking of 4-3 shows, and I also have a lot of PtE-shows in this format. Please, can you give this numbers in cm's and kilograms too? Thank you.

Question 4.

What are you or your clients using to provide this screens with slideshows; laptops, a complete computer, blueray players or something else what also add to the weight you have to transport?

Question 5.

Last question: is the sound output of a led screen sufficient in a small hall, or do you have to use an extra sound rig?

Would be very nice to read your answers, so thank you in advance..

Regards,

Henri.

[Henri.R]

There is no question that a small projector and laptop combination is lighter than a big screen and easier for some to transport, especially where large SUV's, pickup trucks and vans are not common as in the U.K. and Europe. For my purpose it's a non issue. I can transport a big screen tv as easily as transporting a cup of tea. Most of those with whom I work have no problems at all transporting big screen tv's.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

Thank you. Fascinating to see how working with PtE sometimes can be so different in practice all over the world!

One of the reasons I really like this forum, I suppose.

Enjoy your cup of tea...

regards,

Henri.

[davegee]

I think that it might be better to ditch the "transportation" side of the discussion - it's not an issue.

I come back to a point I made earlier.

100 people, comfortably seated, in a medium sized hall at 7.30 - 10pm (with the lights out) on an evening between Sept and May (we don't meet in the summer) are more like to have a better viewing experience with an 8-10 foot WIDE projection screen than with a 4 foot 8 inch (DIAGONAL?) TV monitor of any description. Please bear in mind that the "people at the back" are going to be up to 30 feet from the screen.

If the TV screen option were offered to these 100 people, it wouldn't be a "debate"; there would be a small riot!

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

Just a quick question? Why a 2 foot 8 inch diagonal tv monitor??

A "large screen" TV in my part of the world would be at least a 56" or possibly a 60" "diagonal" screen. What you describe (a 32 inch diagonal) is definitely too small to have any impact. That would be a large "monitor" display, not a large screen TV wouldn't it?

Most of my business customers have 60" wide screen TV's set up in their larger conference rooms which will comfortably seat 100 people who are not complaining - LOL>

Best regards,

Lin

I think that it might be better to ditch the "transportation" side of the discussion - it's not an issue.

I come back to a point I made earlier.

100 people, comfortably seated, in a medium sized hall at 7.30 - 10pm (with the lights out) on an evening between Sept and May (we don't meet in the summer) are more like to have a better viewing experience with an 8-10 foot WIDE projection screen than with a 2 foot 8 inch (DIAGONAL?) TV monitor of any description. Please bear in mind that the "people at the back" are going to be up to 30 feet from the screen.

If the TV screen option were offered to these 100 people, it wouldn't be a "debate"; there would be a small riot!

DG

[davegee]

2'8" - 4'8" - Same thing - minor riot.

These guys look at each pixel INDIVIDUALLY!

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

You do see the fallacy in that logic, don't you? if 2' 8" and 4' 8" are the same, then it follows that 4' 8" and 8' are as well. Actually, I don't believe that 2'8" and 4'8" are the same at all myself, especially if you are dealing with the same technology. Personally, I believe that a 60" large screen high definition television displaying a high definition 1080p slideshow is superior to a 1080p projector projected at identical dimensions. It then follows that as you increase the size of the projection with the attendant and necessary decrease in brightness and contrast, the larger projected image has less acuity and sharpness.

The point is that a 60" large screen is quite large enough for 100 people to clearly see a very nice slideshow at 30'. If by preference you like it larger, dimmer and with less acuity then blowing it up to 8' with a projector is a valid choice. The only important thing is that you use what works best for your individual situation.

Best regards,

Lin

2'8" - 4'8" - Same thing - minor riot.

These guys look at each pixel INDIVIDUALLY!

DG

[davegee]

Two countries separated by a common language (sic).

You're not getting it and you won't give in so I'll pull out.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

I get it, I just believe that there is no "correct" answer, only preference. It's like arguing whether Apricots or Plums are "better." For me the large screen TV is better; for you the projector is better. It's all a matter of "taste."

Best regards,

Lin

Two countries separated by a common language (sic).

You're not getting it and you won't give in so I'll pull out.

DG