Igor's new Epson projector

[Henri.R]

Recently Igor told us about his new digital Epson projector; resolution 1980x1050, (the new so called HD format?).

Can anyone tell me what obtaining a device like this,except the picture improvement of course, will mean for our workflow, for instance size and resolution of pictures (panning and zooms included), but also for our equipment regarding monitor, size of harddisks and last but least, do I also have to trade in my laptop for a machine with 1980x1050 screen.? Etc. etc.

Henri.

[davegee]

Henri,

It is possible that your laptop (if it has a dedicated graphics card) would support a large resolution monitor.

For instance, my laptop, which has a screen resolution of 1024x768 is currently attached to a 1280x1024 monitor.

I can run either the laptop monitor at 1024x768 OR the monitor at 1280x1024 but not both together (only at 1024x768).

I don't know what the maximum resolution of my laptop's graphics card is - it is possible that it would support an even larger resolution monitor.

However I don't know how to tell what the max res that the card will support.

Anyone?

DaveG

[Conflow]

Hi Guys,

Surely its all down to 'How Large' you make the Photograph Image's for your PTE Show ?

and the Projector is asked to replicate those 're-sized' images on its Screen and we are

talking about the Epson-Projector courtesy of Igor and Photoshop can re-size anything

even though you might not see the full (oversized) Images on your PC.Monitor ??

Brian.Conflow.

[davegee]

Hi Brian,

I think that what we are talking about here is matching the computer monitor resolution with the projector resolution in order to see images/shows at ACTUAL PIXELS (to use Photoshop terminology) on both monitor and projector at the same time.

At least that's what I would be looking for.

DaveG

[Henri.R]

Dave and Brian,

I agree with Dave in this matter.

But what we really need I think is a (comprehensive?) list of things to do and to change.

If this 1980x1050 and/or HD thing really is our nearby future don't you think we must be prepared?

Maybe that somebody already working with this stuff can tell us about his/her workflow and equipment.

Of course all this doesn't mean that we must change: obviously every one working happy now must stay happy!

Thanks,

Henri.

[davegee]

Henri,

To the best of my knowledge only one "Photographic Federation" in the UK has decided to go for the larger resolution.

Most of those who have already upgraded have gone for 1400x1050 and the rest are set to follow that lead.

My personal preference is for the larger resolution but I don't think it will be with us (in competition) for a few years yet.

In the AV community I think that anything larger than 1400x1050 is going to require VERY powerful computers to cope with PZR effects.

DaveG

[Conflow]

Dave & Henri,

From a purely Scientific point of view (Optical Physics) if you have an Image 1024x768 Pixels on a 20"/50.Cm Monitor

and this is projected on to a 72"/182.Cm Screen ~ following your line of argument means the Projector would have to

ratio-metrically multiply the effextive pixel count in the X and Y Axis on the Screen to accurately replicate what you see

on the Monitor. Projectors don't work that way,they are Optical Devices irrespective whether they process in Analog or Digital.

However if you are talking about (Direct) 'Large HD-Plasma Displays' such as the Large HD-Televisions and Home HD-Screens,

these are not Projectors, they are Direct-Image Diisplays ~(purely digital-technology)~ and indeed these can re-process

Image-Sizes, such as found in PTE.Shows, into their unique Video-Format for display on their Large Screens.

People tend to forget that JPeg Images store a vast amount of data which can be adequately re-processed from 'Thumbnail Size'

right up to very large HD-Screen Sizes. How many times on this Forum have Members advised others that their Images are too big

although they are still in Jpeg 1024x768 Pixel size format ~ and when de-compressed these Images can be really huge.

Thats my understanding of current technology...

Brian.Conflow.

[davegee]

Hi Brian,

Talking from a photographic viewpoint (as opposed to AV), clubs and other societies who run competitions undertake that there shall be NO INTERPOLATION of images anywhere in the computer/projector chain.

I take this to mean that because they have, for instance, a 1400x1050 projector they ask for authors to submit at no greater than 1400 wide by 1050 high resolution if they want their images to fill the screen when projected for judging. Organisers then have a duty to ensure that the software used to show the images does not interpolate smaller images up to full screen during judging. This is where PTE comes in with its ability to show images at "original" size.

Logically, I would want the same resolution (or greater) monitor so that I can view the whole of my 1400x1050 images at "actual pixels" when preparing them for competition.

I am not sure where the physical size of monitors comes in to it. It is the resolution that concerns me - actual pixels.

DaveG

[Conflow]

Dave,

AAaaH ~ I see where you are coming from, its the eternal clash of the "Film Photographic World ~V~ Digital Photographic World"

You know, isn't it about time that these Societies & Judges damn well made up their minds as to what they want and stop this

"nanny" attitude of "We are the Law" ~ We have them here in Ireland also and none of them can agree.

Do they want to Judge "Film-Photographs" or "Digital-Images" made to a Universal Standards Format~ thats the root issue here.

Yes, of course you are right, I agree with you ~ there has to be a 'Standard Size' for Judging purposes ~ but here is the stupidity

of it all. Two Images of the same subject:- Image(A) could be 150Kb. and Image( could be 2Mb and each 1024x768 in Size.

So which is the better Image? that all depends on the Computer not the Image Size.

Let me explain:- There is no such thing as a JPeg Image ~ it doesn't exist on the Computer, in fact there are NO IMAGES on any

Computer. A Jpeg Image is purely a 'page' of compressed Command Line Data Sets which the Microprocessor interprets and instructs

the VGA and Graphic-Card to draw a 2D Drawing on the Screen. Hey,voila a lovely Picture in "virtual-reality" but it doesn't exist in reality,

it aint there, you can't hold nor touch it ~ excepting when you Print a facsimile of it and its not the origional, because thats lost forever.

Depending on how good the Computer is at de-compression and de-coding the data and how fast its Data-Buss really is and how fast

and how good its memory Buffers really are ~ all of these dynamics will have a final quality impact on the perceived Image on a good VDU,

and is it good VDU ? and more to the point, is it a good Projector and when was it last Calibrated ?.

Example: A 500Kb Image on a modern Computer will deliver an excellent Photo ~ but try the same thing on an old Windows '95 PC ?

Not a hope, and how fair is that to a young brilliant Photographer without the proper resources ? and how impartial are the Judges then !

What I am trying to say is, they should agree on an acceptable Size-Format (Such as the Royal Photographic Society Rules) and not on

the size of their Projector and 'interpolation' shouldn't come into it, just:- Image Subject, Quality, Artistic Intrepretation & Technique.

I rest my case, take care,

Brian.Conflow.

[cjdnzl]

Dave,

AAaaH ~ I see where you are coming from, its the eternal clash of the "Film Photographic World ~V~ Digital Photographic World"

You know, isn't it about time that these Societies & Judges damn well made up their minds as to what they want and stop this

"nanny" attitude of "We are the Law" ~ We have them here in Ireland also and none of them can agree.

Do they want to Judge "Film-Photographs" or "Digital-Images" made to a Universal Standards Format~ thats the root issue here.

Yes, of course you are right, I agree with you ~ there has to be a 'Standard Size' for Judging purposes ~ but here is the stupidity

of it all. Two Images of the same subject:- Image(A) could be 150Kb. and Image( could be 2Mb and each 1024x768 in Size.

So which is the better Image? that all depends on the Computer not the Image Size.

<snip>

Brian.Conflow.

Hello Brian et al,

Part of the problem mentioned in your first paragraph is caused by the exhibitors, who, particularly in competitions, will complain loudly if the computer/projector combo alters their slide show in any way at all. They expect the system will show their slides at the original pixel dimensions, hence the competiton rules attempt to circumnavigate this by specifying set dimensions, usually 1024*768, locking out those like barry bbdigital with his 1280*1024 images.

Also, I have to disagree with you regarding your second paragraph; an 8-bit 1024*768 image is always 2,359,296 bytes (1024*768*3). The file containing that image may vary depending on compression applied, but the displayed image does not vary.

Regards,

Colin

[potwnc]

I'm no longer sure what the real issue(s) is (are) being discussed in this thread but here's my input for what it's worth...

There are now many (expensive) digital display devices that go beyond the full-HD video standard of 1920x1080 resolution in one or both dimensions. These are generally used in ultra high quality computer gaming environments and professional architecture, engineering etc. workflows Unless you play/work in one of these environments I'm not sure why you would need such a display device. If you plan to create video output from PTE I can't imagine why you would need any device beyond 1920x1080 resolution (which is what I use) to produce or display it. If you plan to create .exe output from PTE you cannot yet build or buy a computer powerful enough to display a slideshow longer than a few seconds that uses 1920x1080 output of true optical pixels with P/Z/R. This is not a limitation of PTE; it is a limitation of the current state-of-the art of computer hardware that can run MS Windows. Even producing video output I recently discovered an MS Windows limitation that (roughly) your images should be no larger than 3x full-HD. That limitation might be increased with a 64-bit version of PTE but, until that day comes, I wouldn't consider the value of owning or targeting your PTE output for any device greater than 1920x1080.

Ray

[Conflow]

Colin & Ray,

Colin I disagree with you, firstly you have taken my comment out of context and ignored the 'Quality Rendition' issue concerning

the 2 Images mentioned. Mathematically speaking your calculation is correct, but if you take the 150Kb Image and show it on a

modern XP-System and on a Win'95 System ~ there is a notable Quality difference. Then do the same with the 2Mb Image

and you will see a vast Quality difference ~ and I said~ "So which is the better Image? that all depends on the Computer

not the Image Size"...unquote.

Ray, I agree with you concerning 1920x1080, indeed we have reached the current limits of Image Rendering and in my Engineering

circles we use Video-Conferencing Utilities with Large HD-Screens. We have never gone that far up to 1920x1080 simply because

visiting Engineers arrive with Portable Laptops "of all Ilks" and we generally settle on 1200 Wide by XXX Height (it varies). So far

we have had no Quality problems, except the occassional 'mutilated' or 'Water damaged Document' scanned in as best as can.

And as I said, at the end of the day, it all boils down to sheer 'raw' Processing Power and System Buss-Speed and in that respect

we are on the limits with 'Windows Op-Systems' despite the fact that we have Processors quite capable of 2-3Gb.Data-Buss Speed.

The bottleneck is in our slow 'RAM Memory Systems' and the limitations of Virtual-Memory Access from Mechanical Hard-Drives.

Windows isn't helping either ~

Brian.Conflow

[davegee]

Too much tech-speak!!

Let your eyes be your judge.

The advice, when editing and image, is that you should view it at ACTUAL pixels on your monitor, regardless of the size (resolution) of your monitor.

Viewing an image at anything other than ACTUAL pixels means that you are viewing an INTERPOLATED image and are not seeing what it truly looks like. Forget about 100Kb images against 2Mb images - that's a different discussion.

Applying this to the computer monitor/projector chain I want the same thing - ACTUAL pixels.

If I submit an image which is 768x576 and it is projected FULL SCREEN on a 1024x768 projector I can see the difference. It is interpolated up and therefore degraded/pixilated - call it what you like. The same thing applies to interpolating downwards.

At our club, when digital competition began, the "committee" wanted the images presented so that all images were shown against a grey background.

This meant that someone who submitted a 1024x768 image saw that image at something less than 1024x768. The problem was that someone had submitted an image in which the he/she had inserted single white pixels to represent stars in an otherwise clear night sky. The end result was that most of the stars disappeared because you can't interpolate a SINGLE pixel downwards.

ACTUAL PIXELS is what I want.

DaveG

[fh1805]

ACTUAL PIXELS is what I want.

So, does that mean you will never use animation features? It is my current understanding that, as soon as you start animating an image, the video adapter has to produce "intermediate" images. These must surely contain pixels that never existed in your image, especially in the case of a zoom in? And do you use only "Cut" transitions because you don't want to see the pixels from two pictures getting mixed-up during a fade or other effect?

[Henri.R]

Dave said:

'ACTUAL PIXELS is what I want'; and again I have to agree with him.

Starting this thread I asked:

"Recently Igor told us about his new digital Epson projector; resolution 1980x1050, (the new so called HD format).

Can anyone tell me what obtaining a device like this,except the picture improvement of course, will mean for our workflow"

The big question left for me, after reading all your arguments and the difficulties you described, is now: Why did Igor for his P2E shows buy a 1900*1050 projector?

I hope he's reading this and can give us the ultimate answer...

Henri.

[davegee]

Hi Peter,

I think I established earlier in the discussion that I was approaching this from a "photographic" point of view rather than an "AVer's" point of view.

When applying the same logic to av I have always advocated that the pixel dimensions of a ZOOMED image, for instance, needs to be in direct proportion to the zoom percentage. (Tech-speak!!)

i.e. in a 1024x768 show, if the image is zoomed IN to 200% then, for highest quality result, that image needs to be 2048x1536 (and no more) to start with. The in between bit is unavoidable. When the zoom finishes, if it finishes, it should display an ACTUAL pixels image. This way the interpolation process is always DOWNWARDS - never upwards. Same thing applies to transitions - unavoidable.

But that is the AV approach - my approach to THIS discussion is from a STILL IMAGE point of view.

DaveG

[Igor]

I bought Epson TW2000 (1080UB) projector mainly for movies and secondly for watching slideshows.

This projector has 1920x1080 screen resolution which exactly matches to Blu-Ray movies.

Of course, the most of other slideshows I have seen created for 1280x1024 screen size. But I plan create my future slideshows at 1920x1080, because I'll burn these slideshows on AVCD disc or Blu-Ray disc.

Also I watch quickly created sequences of my new photos on the projector at full 1920x1080 resulution. And photo look very impressive on a large screen with deep colors and high resolution.

As I know only projectors for home cinema (now it's 1920x1080 FullHD) delivers highest quality of a picture, high contrast (natively 4000:1 and more) and deep rich colors. Low fan noise.

Epson TW2000 (1080UB), JVC HD100, Sony VW60, etc.

[fh1805]

Hi DaveG,

For single Still Images I'm with you all the way! And, I admit, I was being just a bit provocative, a bit "devil's advocate-ish" in my previous post. No offence intended.

[davegee]

Hi Peter,

I think I knew where you were coming from!!

DaveG

[davegee]

Hi again Peter,

You said:

"For single Still Images I'm with you all the way!"

Could that be interpreted to mean that you disagree with my theories regarding zooming etc?

DaveG

[Conflow]

Dave,

You said:-Too much tech-speak!!

Dave how are we supposed to communicate with you, so far the 'Teck-Speak' has been at rural level.

You said:-Let your eyes be your judge.

Already demonstrated with the 'Twin-Image' comparison I described but nobody 'copped-it' ~ the best a Win '95 PC

can do is 256 Colours whilst modern PC can easily achieve 65536 Colours ++ and my eyes are certainly the Judge !

You dismissed that as another issue without thinking it through.

You said:- The advice, when editing and image, is that you should view it at ACTUAL pixels on your Monitor.

You seem to have the misconception that a 'Pixel' is a standard universal Picture artifact of fixed dimension.

Hate to dissapoint you, it isn't. Pixel size is variable from .413mm on 800x600 Monitor and .377mm on 1024x768 and

so on. Pixels can be square, circular, or a line. and this argument only applies to CRT. Monitor Screens (Cathode Ray Tubes).

Modern TFT, LCD, Plasma Screens etc; don't use Pixels they use Sub-Pixels because there is no CRT.Electron-Beam.

And the contexural definition of 'Sub-Pixel' varies from Manufacturer to Manufacturer,depending on the Technology used.

You said:-Applying this to the computer Monitor/Projector chain I want the same thing - ACTUAL pixels.

Well considering the above 'Teck-Speak' what do you mean by...'ACTUAL pixels'

You see Guys:- Editing on one particular Screen of a Fixed-Size and Native-Resolution will NOT TRANSLATE

to another Screen of same size irrespective of resolution and this applies to Projectors, LCD Screens, TFT Screens

and all other Video-Displays right across the board. Everything is Interpolated except what you see on your Screen,

and are they really Pixels ? (see above) and can your Computer-System replicate them as the JPeg-Data demanded ?

Talking about Pixels:- is 'gobildy-gook' unless you define what you mean and in what application.

I am please that Igor took the time to explain his thinking on this matter ~now~ if you refer to the latter part of

my previous Post you will see that I was saying the same thing and the above is by way of an explaination.

Brian.Conflow.

[fh1805]

Hi DaveG,

No, I don't disagree with your theories regarding zooming.

I,too, try and ensure that I have only original pixels displayed when I am zoomed in. It's not always possible because sometimes I am using scans of old, historic photographs or postcards. But with this kind of image I find that I, and my typical audiences, can accept some loss of definition at the deep end of the zoom.

For modern images taken with my Nikon D70 I never zoom beyond the original image size (3000x2000 = c.300% zoom). To date I don't think I've ever found a need for a zoom of greater than 200%.

[davegee]

Hi Brian,

You seem to be talking about things which are beyond our control.

I can control the pixel dimensions of my images (e.g. 1024x768) and try to "match" them with the "pixel dimensions" of the projector/monitor which shows my images and I know what LOOKS right and what looks "degraded or pixilated". I definitely do not want any 1024x768 image of mine shown full screen projected via a 1400x1050 projector. I know what it looks like and don't want it.

Maybe this works for all of the WRONG reasons, but it works and others SEEM to agree.

DaveG

[Conflow]

Dave,

You choose to be dismissive again, but here is what you wrote:-

........"Viewing an image at anything other than ACTUAL pixels means that you are viewing an

INTERPOLATED image and are not seeing what it truly looks like....Actual Pixels is what I want"...

And another part:- ..."It is advisable to Edit in Actual Pixels"...

So Dave can you explain to me what you mean by....Actual pixels....or am I missing something ?

Brian.

[davegee]

What do I mean by ACTUAL PIXELS?

In my terminology one of my images which Photoshop tells me in "Image Size" is 1280x1024 pixels fills my 1280x1024 monitor when shown via a PTE show constructed with the image mode set to "original" in a Windowed Mode PTE show with the window set to 1280x1024 (without border).

In the same show a 1024x768 image set up in exactly the same way would take up proportionately less space in the middle of the screen.

In the same show a 1400x1050 pixel image set up the same way would only show part of the image with a little cropped from all sides. If this 1400x1050 image were to be set to Image Mode=Fit to screen it would be Interpolated down to fit the width (?) of the screen with black lines top and bottom.

I can't explain it any better than that Brian.

DaveG