Igor's new Epson projector

[JEB]

Hi,

Keep it up folks!

This is good stuff!

I'm in danger of learning something!!!!!

All the best.

John

[davegee]

Brian,

Could I ask - "Is this a Rugby thing?"

Because if it is let me say that if Wales hadn't won the tournament I would have supported Ireland all the way!!

DaveG

[Conflow]

Dave,

Now I appreciate your terminology...'Actual Pixels'...its a Photoshop subjective definition and you know it couldn't

be further from the facts. Because modern LCD and TFT Monitors don't use 'Pixels' ~ I have explained that before.

But the Manufacturers are determined to stick to that convention because its a popular, if erroneous definition.

Its like DPI in "Photographic Editor Programs" ~no such thing~ thats a Printer definition, dots per square inch.

I think I understand what you are trying to do:- You are trying to "ad hoc" adjust your 1024x768 Images in

a way as to give you the best 'quality-compromise' when these are Projected on to a Screen. Then you are trying

to develop a 'procedure' whereby you can repeat the process at will in the future...am I correct ?

Brian.

P.S... Ahhh,shucks we deserved to loose that Match ~ but just wait !

[davegee]

Actual Pixels - a Photoshop Terminology - it's "always" been there and gives the best representation of what an image will look like when projected by a projector whose stated resolution is the same as the images stated resolution (in pixels).

As for "trying to "ad hoc" adjust your 1024x768 Images in

a way as to give you the best 'quality-compromise' when these are Projected on to a Screen. Then you are trying

to develop a 'procedure' whereby you can repeat the process at will in the future."

I am not trying to develop this approach - I have always done it.

DaveG

[fh1805]

Further to the discussion above on what is a pixel?, does it really exist?, etc.

If I load an image file into Photoshop Elements and then zoom in (Ctrl++) repeatedly I will, eventually, see on my computer's monitor - which is an LCD/TFT type (I don't know if there's a difference and I don't care!) a part of the image displayed as a mosaic of small rectangles, each of which is a single colour. These little rectangles are what I consider to be pixels - and what I suspect the vast majority of the rest of us would consider to be pixels.

And on an historical point, if my memory serves me aright, the "word" pixel is actually an abbreviation (or perhaps a better expression might be a "corruptevation") of "picture element" - i.e. a bit of something that makes up the digital representation of that which we humans call a colour picture (or if you're American or Canadian: a color picture. You guy's never could spell properly!) And of course, to a dog it would be a monochrome picture; and a Texas Cave Salamander wouldn't even see it, even if it wanted to - poor thing has no eyes!

What bearing does that have on the discussion above? None at all, I just thought I'd get a lot of digressions out of the way in one go.

[Conflow]

Well Dave,

Thats O.K ~ if you're happy with Photoshops' processing of your Images, fair enough. I had intended

to show a way of getting the maximum resolution from a 1024x768 Image so that it would show a

bigger Image on a Projector Screen without (so-called) 'pixelation' break up.

Perhaps another day,

Brian.Conflow.

[davegee]

Yeah,

Let's wait and see who wins the next match?

Best wishes,

DaveG

[JudyKay]

Dare a female stick a finger in the fray? I thought my cmos sensor recorded in pixels, but it may be a conspiracy--in fact it records in plasmatic, spasmatic subnovae. At least it looks that messy when my PSS sensor is dusty. When I think pixels, I think of what is recorded as data by my camera, whether it is raw or scrumbled down (tech speak) as a jpeg. Somewhere buried in my digital photo data is some info that is intended to be sent to a device to be interpreted through means of tft/crt/projector bulb--whatever--that is a blob of color I think of as a pixel. Depending on the device and the sending apparatus, I may or may not be happy with the results.

Correct me if I am dumber than a rugby goalpost, and if its its worthwhile, but thanks for allowing me to clarify my vantage point on the rugby field.

NOW...Brian, don't you dare stop now! I want to know your advice how to make an image BIGGER...with the best results. Please?

jk

PS. If a pixel does not think, does it not exist?

[Henri.R]

You know, Judy, somewhere in this world lives a king, named 'business' and his queen is named 'progress'! I don't know where he lives, but he is alive and well, that's for sure...

When he thinks it's time he says: 'and now, my people, you change your LP in a CD and then your CD in a DVD, and now in a Blue Ray and now you use for projecting your P2E shows a projector with 1900x1050 resolution!'

And then I have to say: 'yes, my king' and then I have just one question: do I have to change my equipment again or not!!

Henri.

[davegee]

Hi Henri,

I tried to answer as best I could some time ago.

With regard to your laptop and its connection to a projector or external monitor, it is POSSIBLE (?) that your graphics card will support the 1920x1080 format.

For instance I can see that my NVIDIA 7600 GS card will support monitors and/or projectors up to and including 2048x1536.

If the graphics card in your laptop does the same then you will not have to replace your laptop.

Let's hope my terminology is correct!

DaveG

[Henri.R]

Hi Dave, I've got your message, many thanks.

Apart from that we've to realize that the size of our pictures is changing again and again. For instance, using a 1024*768 projector at present I have to make 2048*1536 for a zoom effect, Peter mentioned that earlier in this thread. In the nearby future this will be 4096*3072 or more so undoubtedly we need more powerful computing not only in the graphics card but in our laptops as well.

What I'm trying to say is that in the digital world we apparently must be prepared to change our gear much quicker than in the past where we had a Leitz or Zeiss projector for 25 years or more!

And here comes in the list I asked for; namely to make an inventory of the things we must change so we have a possibilty to calculate more or less what we need in $$, €€, ££ etc.

And that again is on top of the price payed for a new projector.....

Henri.

[Barry Beckham]

Well, this is all as clear as mud.

I have read loads of threads here and still can't follow the discussion. It must be all the techno speak that makes my eyes glaze over. I am probably missing something simple along the way and the one thread I did not read probably has the key.

Colin

How would anyone be locked out of a competition because the rules stated shows must be 1024*768? Most of the club rules are arrived at in a democratic way and if I wanted to enter a competiton, I would make a show to fit the rules. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

You can show a 1280*1024 slide show on a 1024*768 PC projector, I do it all the time and you know how fussy I am about image quality. If my 1280 shows didn't come up to standard on my 1024 Epson 1710 I would soon kick them into touch.

[cjdnzl]

Well, this is all as clear as mud.

I have read loads of threads here and still can't follow the discussion. It must be all the techno speak that makes my eyes glaze over. I am probably missing something simple along the way and the one thread I did not read probably has the key.

Colin

How would anyone be locked out of a competition because the rules stated shows must be 1024*768? Most of the club rules are arrived at in a democratic way and if I wanted to enter a competiton, I would make a show to fit the rules. I wouldn't have a problem with that.

You can show a 1280*1024 slide show on a 1024*768 PC projector, I do it all the time and you know how fussy I am about image quality. If my 1280 shows didn't come up to standard on my 1024 Epson 1710 I would soon kick them into touch.

Hello Barry,

Perhaps 'locked out' is a bit strong, and I guess there are different rules for different competitions, but here the Photographic Society of New Zealand (PSNZ) specifies 1024*768 for shows entered in its competitions.

I did run one of your shows on my Epson EMP 730 1024*768 projector, and it did resize the images, but left black lines on both sides of the screen, which I guess might count against it in a competition.

I have to say your shows are of a very high standard indeed.

Colin

[Barry Beckham]

Colin

A projector won't resize an image will it. If you show a 1280 show through a 1024 projector it won't be right and you will lose parts of the image. You have to increase the resolution of the PC powering the projector to 1280*1024, then all is well.

[fh1805]

Barry,

You wrote"A projector won't resize an image will it". Yes it will. At least, some will. My Dell MP3300 has a native resolution of 1024x768 but if set into Auto-Sync mode it will resize SXGA (1280x1024) and SXGA+ (1400x1050) down to 1024x768 using some form of compression routine.

Needless to say, I always run it in native resolution and consequently all my sequences are built to 1024x768 as a standard.

[cjdnzl]

Colin

A projector won't resize an image will it. If you show a 1280 show through a 1024 projector it won't be right and you will lose parts of the image. You have to increase the resolution of the PC powering the projector to 1280*1024, then all is well.

In a bit more detail, the computer was set to 1280*1024, and the image was fed to a 1024*768 projector. The projector resized the image to 768 high, but was short on the 1024 dimension because of the 1280*1024 ratio of 5:4, since the projector ratio is 4:3.

The actual image width was 768*1280/1024 pixels, = 960 pixels, short by 64 pixels, 32 each side.

Personally, I don't really like the 1280*1024 screens, the 5:4 aspect ratio is too square for my liking, and most desktop displays are stretched vertically to fill the screen. OTOH, my laptop wide screen at 1680*1050 gives a ratio of 16:10 which I find really good. To each his own, I guess.

Colin

[davegee]

Colin,

Just seeking clarification - don't want to start a war!

When you said - "The projector resized the image to 768 high" - Is this not the same as saying "The projector Interpolated the image down to 768 high"?

If this is the case, then "pixels" (I'm treading on dangerous ground here) must have been lost and you are then not showing what the author intended.

This is where I advocate "Actual Pixels" throughout the chain - 1024x768 show for 1024x768 projector.

I'm glad that Barry joined in, it gives me the opportunity to congatulate him on another fine show. (The quality of the images really is superb!)

........and also to ask him why he chose to make both 1024x768 and 1280x1024 versions available again?

DaveG

[Conflow]

Colin and Dave,

There is a little bit more to this than meets the eye ~ the "Attachment" from

my Lecture Notes might help to shed some light on that particular subject.

One of you is using the XGA Screen Format and the other is using the SXGA

and from the "off" there is a bit of a problem with that. Hope you sort it.

Brian.Conflow.

[Ken Cox]

Dave

1024x768

he wanted to make sure the "masses" seen it

ken

[davegee]

Thanks Ken,

But if I run the 1280x1024 version on a 1024x768 screen I can still see the whole show.

So maybe Barry could throw a little light on it?

DaveG

[Barry Beckham]

DaveG

Why the two versions, well, firstly because it was easy to do with no animation in the reduced size version. Also, someone on my forum couldn't view it well, so as I had the time I made the extra version.

Using Save to Zip and Photoshop's actions it didn't take long at all, but an animated show would be something else.

You can't win though. I made a balloon slide show at for a 1024*768 resolution that someone said should have been made to fit the screen.

Fill the screen and someone says that's wrong too.

Best if I please myself and leave it at that I think

Not sure what light you want me to throw really. I play slide shows created for 1280*1024 pixel monitors perfectly on my 1024*768 projector. As I said I just change the resolution of the PC to 1280*1024, just to show the slide show, then back again to continue my lecture.

[Barry Beckham]

Here is an interesting set of stats, only recently 1024*768 was quite a way ahead, now it's neck and neck with 1280*1024. Coming up on the rails is 1280*800.

I have always felt that if you could isolate digital photographers and run this poll again, the result would be much different with 1280*1024 way out in front.

[davegee]

Thanks Barry,

Knowing how much you care about the quality of the images, I thought that aspect might have had something to do with it.

Interesting poll - at present my desktop is attached to a 1280x1024, my new laptop (still in its box) is a 1280x800 and my old laptop (soon to be retired) has a 1024x768 screen but is connected to and capable of running a 1280x1024 monitor.

I want to get a 1400x1050 monitor in readiness for the next round of projectors which seem to be heading in that direction.

DaveG

[Barry Beckham]

Thanks Barry,

Knowing how much you care about the quality of the images, I thought that aspect might have had something to do with it.

Interesting poll - at present my desktop is attached to a 1280x1024, my new laptop (still in its box) is a 1280x800 and my old laptop (soon to be retired) has a 1024x768 screen but is connected to and capable of running a 1280x1024 monitor.

I want to get a 1400x1050 monitor in readiness for the next round of projectors which seem to be heading in that direction.

DaveG

Dave

I can't really see the point in doing that, unless I am missing something. You can produce any resolution slide show from any monitor? It looks as though the future is going to be wide screen, so our screens may be up in the 1600 pixels wide and beyond. They probably already are in some cases.

To project those with a widescreen projector we will need wider screens too

[Almark]

Hi Folks, all interesting stuff. MY camera club have agreed to go for a full HD capable projector and a new PC capable of running it. Now I am happy enough to spec the pc but the projector is giving me trouble. You can get full HD projectors for less than £1,000

http://www.projectors.co.uk/pp/Projectors/...E%5FCINEMA.html

So I was wondering if anyone out there has recently bought a 1080p projector at around £1,000....

The BENQ W5000 looks great and by August maybe the price will have come down to my budget of around £1,000

Any advice or suggestions are most welcome.

Mark