Old Nutmeg "Resolution"

[JEB]

I suppose I should say that I am sorry to raise this old nutmeg again - but it would be a lie.

The truth is that I am petrified and also just a little desperate!

The facts relating to my needs (sorry to be selfish) are as follows:-

My prime purpose in producing shows is to project them through MY OWN Digital projector and laptop.

Of secondary importance is that it would be nice if family and friends could view them via a CD on their own PC’s or laptops (no doubt a variety of screen resolutions) and perhaps in the longer term TV (DVD).

With the development of wide screen TV (I don’t have one but will have to upgrade sometime) and perhaps with likely improvements in AVI and all that stuff (!?) I should perhaps keep this in mind. But this is not a high priority.

Of lesser importance is that they could possibly, though unlikely, be viewed via other projectors and PC’s of lower resolution.

I have recently purchased the Canon SX50, which has a resolution of 1400 x 1050 (1.33 aspect ratio) and a new laptop with the same native resolution of 1400 x 1050. My understanding is that a direct match is important to obtain the best possible results?

The other resolution consideration is that I prepare my shows on a desktop PC with a maximum screen ratio of 1280x1024 but have been up till now using 1280x960 which I understand to be its “native resolution”. How important is the “native” resolution at this stage? Is this not more important at the laptop/projector stage?

My camera also a Canon will capture (in its high res setting) a landscape at 3504x2336 which, as I calculate it, equates to 1400x 933 (1.5 aspect ratio). This assumes no cropping. The other option is to crop to 1400x1050 (1.3) in line with what I understand is the present conventional aspect ratio of 1280x960.

I am very tempted to the 1400x933 option as being a tight fisted Scot I am reluctant to throw away hard earned pixels by cropping, and from what tests I have done I can, I think, live with the top and bottom border. My other reason for favouring this line is that I suspect that this aspect ratio more closely meets the ratio of modern TVs.

I would very much appreciate the views of others out there who I am sure have a better understanding of this than I do. Clearly I am keen to maximise the potential of my kit and meet the criteria I have outlined above.

Thanks in anticipation!

John

[JRR]

John:

I am not going to reply to your entire notes, I will leave much it to those techies with much more knowledge than I....

Our club just bought the Canon Realis Sx50 and we have now calibrated it for the screen we use (or should use). It is an absolutely great projector, the highlight and shadow details are tremendous.

Regarding your wish not to crop. I understand what you are saying, and I would prefer not to crop (saves a lot of time if you don't) but I crop virtually all mine to the resolution that I use (1280x960 This choice is for a number of reasons and is not meant to be a comment re your dilemma).

The scond reason I crop is help improve the transitioning from one image to the next. By selective cropping you can get parts of the two images to line up the way you want for the transitions which can make a difference in the quality of your finished product.

[alrobin]

John,

Jim has answered most of your queries and concerns so I'll just add to his remarks.

I too have just purchased a wide-format laptop and "matching" projector, but with a slightly smaller resolution (1280x768), the idea being that I will not be projecting very often onto a 20-ft screen, so do not really need the extra pixels. Also (and this is the real reason), it was about $2,000 less-expensive.

I don't like to crop if I don't have to, either, but there is no ideal hardware (that I know of) that will fit the exact aspect ratio of one's camera. So, my preference is to go wide-screen (in my case, 1280x768) and accept the presence of the unused black bars at the sides. Fortunately I have that little extra headroom over the "usual" 1280x720 ratio so I achieve a little more efficient use of the available pixels than I would otherwise be able to. Or, to put it another way, with an aspect ratio not quite so wide, there is less unused area in the side-bars.

One issue which does present itself as a consideration is the use of the "push" transitions in PTE. In order to be able to project both horizontal and vertical "push" transitions, the aspect ratio of the slideshow must be exactly the same as that of the projector - hence the need to crop slightly (in my case, off the top and/or bottom of my images. This is sometimes more difficult to achieve than cropping off the sides). But, in this world, you can't "have your cake and eat it too"!

Now, DVD's and HDTV projection are another issue all of their own.

[JEB]

Jim, Al,

Thank you both for your replies. I will take on board your comments about cropping to enable more sympathetic overlaps, Jim. I had not given that much thought which just shows how green I am.

Also Al, thank you for confirming that there is merit in having the same resolution on the Laptop and Projector.

Can I assume that my concern about preparing my shows on my desktop with its screen resolution set to 1280x 960 or 1280x1024 as explained in my initial post will have no impact on the final projected show provided the images are prepared at the laptop/projector resolution (a derivative still to be decided of 1400x1050 in my case)?

What are your views on push and pull regarding vs.5? Have there been any suggestions that this may be achieved in a different way thus making this consideration redundant? I can see that you are very active on the Forum hence my asking.

I am interested that you have gone down the wide screen route. My “mixed up” interpretation of what I have been reading recently suggested that there were fairly fixed standards so it is encouraging not to feel that I have to be too restricted.

Thanks again

John

[Ken Cox]

John

you might pick up some tips here

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3943

ken

[alrobin]

Can I assume that my concern about preparing my shows on my desktop with its screen resolution set to 1280x 960 or 1280x1024 as explained in my initial post will have no impact on the final projected show provided the images are prepared at the laptop/projector resolution (a derivative still to be decided of 1400x1050 in my case)?

What are your views on push and pull regarding vs.5? Have there been any suggestions that this may be achieved in a different way thus making this consideration redundant? I can see that you are very active on the Forum hence my asking.

John, that's correct, the resolution setting of the pc on which you are editing your images doesn't matter, except that you will have a better view of just what it will look like if your screen settings are set at the same resolution as your projector/laptop. A "1280x960" image prepared using a monitor of one resolution will be the same as another "1260/960" image prepared at a different resolution. Just make sure the image dimensions are what you want them to be, and it won't matter what monitor resolution you are using with which to view them.

The only time monitor resolution settings will matter somewhat is if you are placing objects on an image in pte - in that case it advisable to set your monitor at the same resolution as that which you will be using to view the show so their position doesn't look distorted in the final viewing. However, even in this case, it is possible to select within the pte "object editor" the monitor setting that you will be using (top left corner), and be able to view the object placement as it will be in the final showing.

Re "push/pull", we are all looking forward to Igor's inclusion of the Ken Burns effects so that we don't have to use the "push/pull" transitions, except when we are making a "classical" type slideshow. Two problems with the "push/pull" transitions now are the little hiccup between transitions and the fact that we are limited to only horizontal or vertical directions. Also, it would be nice to be able to slide one image in one direction and an "object" image in another direction simultaneously.

[JEB]

Thank you all for your help. I can now get to work with a little more confidence.

John