Difference in monitor vs projector displays

[Conflow]

Jim,

Could you be a little more lucid on...."this is only an issue on zooming outside the original portion of the image"...

Do you mean that there is a 'border' around the Image and you are zooming into the Border ??

And the 'Border' itself ~ whats its Image format ?

Brian.

[Conflow]

Hi Peter,

As you know most 'Composite Video Signals' are 'Analog' signals usually outputted as a 'Standard' on the older type of VGA Socket.

Where in comparison the PC.Monitor signals are 'digitalally' generated ~ most Monitors being rasterless require digital inputs.

More modern versions of the 'VGA-output' can detect whether the external Monitor is an Analog or Digital device and they switch

to the appropriatee function automatically.

(Some can maintain both functions simultaneously depending on the PC.Bias System and its associated Graphics Card).

In your case you are doing this 'manually' by pressing the "Fn Key" (Function numeric Key) ~ however your VGA can't do both

functions simultaneously, ie:- Analog & Digital outputs together...thats your problem. Having said that, the 'older' PC has more

chance of success when rendering out to a Projector as it is considerably slower than modern VGA/Graphics Cards.

May I also compliment you on your recent Tests ~ great job. The following is just a suggestion, it would be interesting to find out

if a "DVD Video-Recorder" could uptake a Pte.AVI with PZR effect and replay that back from the DVD Recorder/Player into the Projector.

That should be possible because all the timing and sync signals would be present and it would be a "Streaming Video" into the Projector

which would not 'over-tax' its Buffer memory. (It should be possible to do this without making a DVD simply using the Recorder-memory)

That might be an alternative answer to PZR-Users ~ whilst killing two birds with the one stone...and these Recorders are now below $250.

Best regards,

Brian.

[JRR]

Brian:

When you pan any image, you do not have the full slide in view and you pan into another area of the image. In our tests this could not be done smoothly

When zooming however, so long as we zoomed into the portion of the original image on screen all went smoothly. It is only when we zoom into a portion of the image that was not initially on view, that is when we run into trouble.

There is no border at all.

If you get a chance look at our test file available at http://www.mediafire.com/?ozjdwizmzmz

Images 13 & 14 are OK Images 15 & 16 are not OK on our projection

[sanewcomb]

I've been following this thread for a few days and have been working on a response, but it keeps changing because of all the activity on this issue! A bit frustrating to rewrite it over and over, so I'm going to jump in with a response. If it seems somewhat disjoint, it's coming from a number of days and rewrites. Sorry about that, but it's now or never !

I second what Colin has said in his most recent posts (#44), that the changing FPS (Frames Per Second) may be the cause for the difference between computer Monitor results vs. Digital Projectors. Below is what I wrote awhile ago before his posts.

When I first scanned this thread I thought I had a good idea of what the problem was, that it was related to the refresh rate as Colin first noted. But after reading the original documents Ed provided and looking at the specs of the Canon projector, I've worked myself around to a different conclusion. (And then a third with another go around!).

It would be useful for anyone who wants to help to read the original documents before posting and look at the slideshow. Ed has put a lot of thought and effort in presenting the problem.

Possible Sources of Video Artifacts in Digital Projectors

There seem to be two possible sources to explain the observations. One, which has been mentioned a few times in the thread, is the quality of the connections. Although one would expect the manufacturers of high end equipment to provide high quality cables, it isn't necessarily the case. These manufacturers are pretty new to the computer video graphics arena and may not understand the issues in making a cable capable of transmitting the entire spectrum of frequencies a video graphics card can send. Their methods may only involve testing standard broadcast signals. It should be easy enough to find an old VGA 15 pin HD D-Sub (HD-15) cable lying around just to see what happens. Just because the artifacts are seen on two different companies products doesn't rule out the cables. There is a lot of looking over each others shoulders in modern corporations, and choosing to do what everyone else is doing rather than risk being "different" (ie, doing it right!).

The second, which is probably more likely, is the technology used to sync to a changing signal in the Digital Projectors may not as advanced or mature as it is in computer Monitors. It may also be related to limits in the hardware itself that is used to project the image in these LCD/LCOS projectors. As others have noted the artifacts appear in fast moving pans (primarily) or zooms, times when P2E will be putting out fewer frames per second (though not less than 30 or so because the motions appear to be smooth on the computer monitors), and times when the change in FPS is most rapid. When little animation is going on, the graphics card puts out a steady frame rate (whatever it is, often as high as 120 FPS) which the projectors can sync to, but when the rate changes quickly it has a harder time keeping up.

Problem Mainly with Pans and may not be related to Inside or Outside

I wouldn't say the test slideshow was conclusive in demonstrating the problem is only when the pan or zoom goes outside the original screen display. It seems connected to the panning alone, with the zoom having little additional effect. A simple way to test this is start with an image zoomed 800%, then pull out to 300% over 10 sec (basically the reverse of slide 11). I suspect you will not see any artifacts even though it has zoomed outside the initial display screen.

And the faster the pan, the more likely to see the artifact. To test the "outside the screen theory" in another way make a slide to zoom up with speed to say 800%, then pan quickly 4x screens left or right. The pan would be within the original screen display and I suspect it will create artifacts.

Workarounds

There are workarounds if rapid FPS changes are the case. Without going into too much detail here at this time, if you understand what causes the video graphics card to lower its FPS, then you can avoid triggering these artifacts most of the time I would think.

1. Use only the image resolution (pixel width and height) necessary for show.

2. Avoid putting a lot of images into 1 slide

3. Slice up large panoramas and use panning technique that JPD and possibly others have used (no transitions)

4. Don't transition between two large slides (both images have to be in video memory at same time)

5. If transition problem won't go away, consider turning off the transition all together and using simple fade in / fade out.

If the changing rate of the FPS is the cause, it may also be possible for WnSoft to offer a fixed FPS option and by setting it to around 25 or 30 FPS, then you could have some assurance that a smooth playback on the computer monitor will be reproduced on most digital projectors. In a way this is already possible, by creating a DVD or HD DVD show because those standards fix the framerate.

Another alternative is to go Maureen's route (link in post 39) and use the HDTV standard signals by having all the components meeting that standard. I know that doesn't help the ones with orphaned projectors.

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA

PS

I don't think it is as complicated as Brian's post implies and I think he may have one technical point backwards. Specifically, I think the problem may be related to the rate of change in the FPS, from high to low in most cases, and not overloading a memory buffer in the projector. 3D graphics engines will drop frames when they become overloaded with memory or bandwidth limited requests from the software. Put another way, when nothing is moving on the screen, the video card is probably putting out 120 FPS or more, which displays fine on the projectors. When loading large resolution pictures (it primarily only matters what the pixel dimensions are and not the file size) and transitioning between two large pictures, the video card's memory overflows and it starts paging, which requires the FPS to slow down significantly.

c)

However when you start using Pan & Zoom which are "Motion-Images" non-synchronised and non-streaming

at very high Frame-Rates often in excess of 60.Fps (PC Standard) this will completely overwhelm the Projector-Memory leading to pixellation, image-banding, colour-bars, jerking and who knows what !!

[fh1805]

Brian,

Let me check my understanding of what you've said in post #52 and how that influences that which I had previously thought I understood.

A laptop's in-built LCD display (which I have been calling a monitor in my posts above) is a digital device and will be getting fed a digital signal from the graphics chipset in the laptop. Is that a correct understanding?

In the case of both my laptops, the projector is fed from a blue-coloured 15-pin D-shaped socket which I have always referred to as a "VGA-out". This will be an analogue signal. Is that correct?

Your explanation for the behavioural change on the old Fujitsu laptop is that the graphics chipset cannot provide both an analogue and a digital signal at the same time and keep both of them in perfect condition (The italics are my words inferred from your post above).

Therefore, I further infer, that using the Fn key on the Fujitsu causes some kind of interaction, probably in the graphics driver software, that causes one half of the graphics processing (the digital feed to the LCD monitor) to be totally switched off, thus leaving the entire graphics resources available for the remaining signal processing - the analogue feed to the projector. Would you regard that as a reasonable conjecture, given that we have no way of knowing exactly what is going on "internally"?

I also, therefore, infer that the Acer simply switches off the LCD monitor's power and makes no change to the signal processing demands made of the graphics resources. It is doing exactly what I do to save a little bit of electricity. If I'm going to be away from the desktop PC for a few minutes, I power off the LCD monitor but leave the system unit powered-up and booted-up.

Fujitsu's solution is neat and sophisticated; by comparison, Acer's solution is quick and dirty. Does that sum it up?

regards,

Peter

[Conflow]

Hi Jim,

I think I get your point ~ you are you are Panning & Zooming on the 'visible' portion of the Image but when you attempt

to go "Off-Screen" to P&Z into the invisible portions you have a problem...

There are many ways of doing Pan and Zoom and I simply don't know which method Igor is using ?...but they all come down

to the fact that space must be made available for the dynamic artifacts dispelled outwards beyond the borders of your Monitor.

1)

Lets assume your Image is 1600x1200 pixels on a 15" Monitor ~ Lets select a portion of this Image, pretend its 800x600 pixels.

2)

Now you P&Z across that or into it ~ no problem there ~ but do remember you have factually told the PC to select that "portion"

for that purpose and the VGA has done a great job on that Image-Portion.

You now decide to go "off-screen" into the invisible portion of the Photo. But in fact thats not available because the Zoom and

Pan artifacts dispelled outside the Monitor-Frame to the left, right, top, and bottom will now occupy that 'invisible' space.

How can I simply explain this ??...As you Zoom into a Picture portion the Image is coming at you and folding away into

the (invisible) left, right, top and bottom of the Monitor Frame...it must go somewhere otherwise it could not Zoom back out again.

So it must be going into what you call the 'invisible-Image part' ~or put it simply~ the disposable parts of the Zoom are folding

around into the back of the Monitor where they cant be seen ~ but when you Zoom out they rejoin the origional P&Z portion.

So in effect the PC has selected a 'working-portion' of the origional Image and made a same-size transparency of the Image remainer

into which it is dumping the expelled side artifacts of the Pan & Zoom process from where it can retrieve them when needed.

It's my opinion but it appears that the 'invisible' portions of the original Image are not accessible using the PTE Pan & Zoom method.

(I could be wrong)

Brian.

[Conflow]

Steve,

Steve you have ignored two important facts:-

..."You propose that Frame-Rate of change and inter Rate-of-Change are the underlying cause of the problems"......

With respects, ALL rates of change at 60.Fps which is the PC output rate will occupy a massive amount of Projector Memory

well beyond its installed limits ~ although it will try to do the job anyway ~ with consequential results depending on Make and

Model and cost of Projector.

As I prevously said in my Post #48..."Reducing the Frame-output rate to 25-30 Fps"...will help the Projector this irrespective of

'change-rates' because the system will attempt to "lock" into the Processor-Synch timing specified by the NTSC and Pal Standards

for which it was designed.

Simply throwing 60.Fps at it and hoping for the best is not the answer...

Brian.

[cgbraggjr]

I'm inclined to believe that frame rates are the problem, but if so, how do we find out and/or control those rates on our computers? Can they be controlled, or are we at the mercy of the mfrs, particularly for laptops where we can't change the video cards?

BTW, although I have not downloaded the problem files, I have no problem panning and zooming an image that resides, in toto, inside and outside of the frame, and I'm using an ACER eeePC and an Optoma EP716 (800x600 native) projector. Large slides and complicated animation do cause the computer to choke, but basically if it plays on the computer it also plays on the projector. This equipment is definitely low-end, but hey, it works.

[cgbraggjr]

OK, I downloaded the 1024x768 test show and it ran without problems on my setup. I fed the projector a native 800x600 resolution and a 1024x768 resolution which it downsized, and I used the CRT only and the CRT-with-LCD outputs, and at all times the P&Zs were smooth.

In the past I have been unable to run old DOS programs on my Windoze computers and it seems to be because my newer hardware was too fast!! A clue???

[Ed Overstreet]

Jim and I did some more tests this morning on the club’s Canon SX-50 projector as well as on his Panasonic projector.

Further to several suggestions on this thread, as well as a request to do so from Canon tech support, we borrowed an S-video cable and ran our test shows on both projectors from the club’s desktop S-video port. The result was good news/worse news. Yes, running the shows through S-video does indeed eliminate the wipe/jitter problem (the good news). But, and this is a very large but, when running either projector on S-video, the Windows desktop and the image displays are horribly un-sharp. Though the projector menus appear sharp on the screen, even the text below the icons on the desktop, and the wording within the Windows Start menu, is fuzzy enough almost to make one wonder whether one’s spectacles need replacing. No photo club audience would sit through a presentation that un-sharp. We tried everything we could see in the projector menus, not to mention adjusting the projector-lens focus, but nothing sharpened the image to a level either of us considered remotely acceptable. Maybe we both are overlooking some simple fix for this that someone on this thread knows about, but whatever it is it’s not obvious to us on the projector menu nor in the projector manual (we also had good looks at both of those).

We’ve reported the above both to Canon and to Panasonic tech support to see what, if anything, they have to say or to suggest for further testing. We’ll let you know if someone comes up with a solution, but at the moment it’s not looking promising.

We also have discovered that the problem disappears if we run VERY long pans in our out-of-the-opening-frame tests, i.e. at least 30 seconds’ duration. Interesting but not a tempting solution; both of us found ourselves nodding off waiting for the pans to finish. I have trouble imagining a show that I’d produce or that I’ve ever seen that would hold my attention during a pan running that slowly. Again perhaps suggestive of where the problem lies, but not suggestive yet of a practical solution, at least from our viewpoint. It doesn’t look like we can safely project a pan through a panorama file except at a snail’s pace, no matter how smooth things (still) look on our monitors.

We will continue to beaver away at this problem as long as Canon, Panasonic, or anyone else comes up with a line of testing that seems likely to lead toward a solution, but at the moment we are not encouraged.

[Ken Cox]

I have used svhs ot to th tv for years - it is a soft pict but when you are trying to amuse g'kids they will put up with anything

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Ed

The fuzzy picture could be a resolution factor. When I set my laptop down to my projectors resolution, the icons and print on the desktop enlarge & go blurred, this happens when I go from 1280x1024 to 1024x768. Seem to have something in my mind that video is 800x600 resolution, could be talking out of my seat??? I also think the Svideo connection is a red herring, people would have picked up on this before as using a bulky VGA cable as opposed to a thinner Svideo is more difficult.

Yachtsman1.

[coopernatural]

Hi Ed,

I have even less of a buffer memory than these projectors,so If I have missed any points covered in the raft of replies

then sorry.

I think Barry B showed up the possible shortcomings of projectors.If you are running a decent front end (not a laptop),and there is a problem with the projector struggling to cope then it would indicate to me that there is some sort of 'buffer underrun'/'lack of memory problem' (techno freaks correct my termonology) there.

I don't think that it's just as straight forward as that though.

If you go to the Media player classic homecinema there is some insight into the 'tearing' problem.

I have seen the effect you mention at my local camera club,as I have been given the job of replacing the old Sanyo

DLP projector with something a bit more modern.

I have looked at the program ReClock as maybe offering some help,but it's function is to work in the video domain though there might be some application for mp4 files.I don't know.

There is some 'read me' information in the download there that gives some insight into what is involved to prevent video problems.

I hate to say it for the purist photogs out there,but with all this panning and zooming you may just be technically Video Editors!

So it may be that there is more to it than just the projector. Operating system,Hardware,Firmware,Software,Updates etc must come into play.

The overall front end must be important and turning off a lot of background processes might (anti-virus etc)along with tweaking the PC help, especially with laptops.

After that though even a high end PC may not rescue a struggling projector.

Would be interesting to hear from someone in the know.

Good luck with the problem.

Think we may well be dabbling in the black art. It's not photography and it's not video.

Certainly candidates for a weirdo fringe group and as such,would projector manufacturers care that 99.99% of users are happy?

Davy

[cjdnzl]

Jim and I did some more tests this morning on the club’s Canon SX-50 projector as well as on his Panasonic projector.

Further to several suggestions on this thread, as well as a request to do so from Canon tech support, we borrowed an S-video cable and ran our test shows on both projectors from the club’s desktop S-video port. The result was good news/worse news. Yes, running the shows through S-video does indeed eliminate the wipe/jitter problem (the good news). But, and this is a very large but, when running either projector on S-video, the Windows desktop and the image displays are horribly un-sharp. Though the projector menus appear sharp on the screen, even the text below the icons on the desktop, and the wording within the Windows Start menu, is fuzzy enough almost to make one wonder whether one’s spectacles need replacing. No photo club audience would sit through a presentation that un-sharp. We tried everything we could see in the projector menus, not to mention adjusting the projector-lens focus, but nothing sharpened the image to a level either of us considered remotely acceptable. Maybe we both are overlooking some simple fix for this that someone on this thread knows about, but whatever it is it’s not obvious to us on the projector menu nor in the projector manual (we also had good looks at both of those).

<snip>

Ed,

Well, that is interesting, and supports the variable refresh rate theory. In my post suggesting you try an S-vid cable, the intention was to check for wipe/jitter problems only as a diagnostic approach, and I said that the vid quality would be poor - in fact reduced to the TV standard, about 720 x 576 pixels, so there is nothing you can do about that. However, you have proved the point that svga or xga analog output makes the projector unhappy. It looks like the projector manufacturers will have to modify their firmware if they want to solve this problem. The question is, will they? A somewhat more radical approach would be to see if Igor can somehow control the refresh rate of PTE to match the projector requirements.

Colin

[davegee]

Just a minor point (possibly):

The Canon sx-50 is equipped with DVI input - has anyone tried this?

When connecting to my TV from my laptop there is a marked difference between the VGA and HDMI/DVI inputs.

VGA is unsharp and gritty - HDMI is super-sharp and a clone of what I see on my laptop monitor.

It's possible that you'll see the same if you connected the SX-50 from a laptop equipped with HDMI?

DaveG

[xahu34]

The Canon sx-50 is equipped with DVI input - has anyone tried this?

I typically used the digital input of the SX-50, when I tested it last year. There was not much difference between the analogue and the digital way (if there was any). The tearing effects showed in both cases.

Regards,

Xaver

[Conflow]

VIDEO TIPS

There is so much conjecture about this problem concerning 'Monitor-V-Projector Image Quality' and stability that I fear

many have lost sight of the 'basic principles' in getting two Machines to work in harmony to achieve stable performance.

The following 'Tips' will not correct some PC Video-Card limitations nor will they correct Projector limitations.

Tips:-

1) Make it your business to find out the 'Frame-Refresh Rate' of your Projector-System.

2) Adjust your 'PC Graphics-Card' to have the same 'Refresh-Rate' as the Projector. (Adjusted in properties).

3) As a 'starting-point' adjust your PTE Image sizes to 1024x768 pixel. (Dont use non-standard big Images)

4) Keep PZR effects well below 5.secs duration for any effect. (This for testing purposes).

5) Only use the VGA output from your PC to the Projector. (Better chance of working properly)

6) If you are using 'Text' in your Shows make sure its 'Arial TT Font'. (*Universal Font for PC's-Printers-Projectors)

Pre-Testing your Set-Up

After adjusting your 'PC Video-Card' Frame-Rate to correspond with the Projectors-Rate run your Show on the PC Monitor.

Now scrutinizs the Production for any artifacts of "cogging, jitter,or smear" ~ if these are evident on your PC.Monitor then

I'm afraid your PC.Graphics Card is not good enough to render the Show to the Projector.

However should everything be O.K on your PC set-up ~ but it falls apart on your Projector, then obviously your Projectors'

Buffer-memory can't handle the input load in this Format.

I hope these basic adjustments will helps some PTE users to become familiar with 'basic rules' of PC to Projector usage.

Brian.Conflow.

*(Other Fonts are available for Slideshows but these must be 'Fully-Scalable TT Fonts' either of type T-1 or T-3)

[Ed Overstreet]

VIDEO TIPS

Pre-Testing your Set-Up

After adjusting your 'PC Video-Card' Frame-Rate to correspond with the Projectors-Rate run your Show on the PC Monitor.

Now scrutinizs the Production for any artifacts of "cogging, jitter,or smear" ~ if these are evident on your PC.Monitor then

I'm afraid your PC.Graphics Card is not good enough to render the Show to the Projector.

For the record, on my laptop computer (which runs our test shows without any "tearing" on the monitor, but the tearing effect does appear on the projector connected to the laptop) -- the Canon manual says the projector can handle 60 Hz. The lowest monitor refresh rate available on my video card is 60 Hz, and when I set it for that in Display Properties, I still don't see any ill effects on my monitor. And I still do on the projector (when the projector is wired to my laptop, 60 Hz is the only choice my video card gives me; with a monitor, depending on the screen resolution, it gives me up to 75 Hz and sometimes more than that).

I don't have easy access to our club's computer, but my recollection is we'd have the same problem there. Adjusting the refresh rate in Display Properties isn't solving our problem, at least on our projectors and monitors.

I fear that Colin's suggestions in his last post (either a firmware update by the manufacturers or maybe something Igor can do in the software) are the only likely "fix" for us ...

[xahu34]

Ed,

Did you try to run your sequence as an MP4/H.264 video (1400x1050, 30 fps, bitrate 6000)?

Best regards,

Xaver

[JRR]

Aside from the Canon Realis Sx50 projector, we have been testing with my Panasonic PT-LB10U

Panasonic was sent a set of test files and their explanation for the jitteriness is: (this is in line with some of the musings we have had from responders to this thread)

The jerkiness is related to how the picture frame is process. On old CRT monitor. The picture is process line by line.

Therefore you will not see any jerkiness. On most flat panel display or projectors, the picture is process frame by frame.

The actual displayed frame and the incoming frame are not at the same frequency. Therefore some in coming frame will have to be dropped every now and then. That is why you see the jerkiness on a pan. The faster the refresh rate of the graphic card, the more jerkiness the display is.

The displayed frame is very close to a video frame that is why you can hardly see it in video. I would suggest try a computer with a component out and feed it to the projector through the VGA port and change the VGA port to YPbYr. Then you should be able to select 720p or 1080i signal which will give you the higher resolution.

[Ed Overstreet]

The following reply just came back to me from Canon Canada, confirming Colin's conclusion 100%. My club's choices are 1) buy another projector (not tempting given our financial situation at the moment, not to mention my uncertainty regarding whether we'd find one that will avoid this problem and not have others; 2) pray that Igor can think of some fix for this, though that doesn't look likely to my un-technical eyes given what Canon is saying, or 3) we just live without being able to pan through any panorama-format images except at a snail's pace, in our shows.

Not very happy or pleasant, but at least we have some resolution, at least from Canon. I don't see any point to Jim or me wasting any more time testing this, at least not on the Canon projector. Possibly not on Jim's either, he has something coming from Panasonic that I'll let him report separately. (Ooops just saw Jim's message coming up while I was editing mine; see his also)

The full text of Canon's latest and seemingly final email to me follows:

"Thank you for your E-mail inquiry regarding the Canon Realis SX50 Projector. Thank you for taking the time to conduct the requested tests. There are no adjustments within the projector menu, that would allow control or adjust the frame rate you mentioned. We have performed the test in our lab, with our own equipment. With our equipment, we too received the same issue you have identified, with the files you've provided. We can conclude, based on these tests and the tests you have performed from your end (with both scanners and multiple computers), the this is considered to be a characteristic of the projector. Thank you for your time and patience in performing the requested tasks."

Please everyone note that Canon reports EXACTLY the same problem that Jim and I have been reporting, in their tests on their equipment. Please also note Canon's confirmation of my observation that I couldn't see any way to adjust the frame rate for the projector; if Canon can't do it, I sure can't.

Enough said, at least from my perspective.

I believe we have hit what is colloquially called a brick wall, or a dead end, or choose your favourite metaphor.

By the way, referring to the reply that Jim copies above, does anyone know what a YPbYr is when it's at home?

Don't you just LOVE it when tech support people send you stuff like that?

[Ken Cox]

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=wh...earch&meta=

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YPbPr

http://www.bigdish.info/hdtv/dif.html

etc

ken

[Ed Overstreet]

Thanks Ken. Guess I should start thinking of checking Wikipedia sometimes ...

I guess our next chore is to see whether the club system and maybe the SX50 has the requisite connectors (though I'd have hoped Canon might have suggested something like what Panasonic suggested, if that's an option on the SX50). The next issue then is what happens, if anything, to the overall picture sharpness when we do this and if there's a trade-off whether the trade-off is worth the bother.

[Ken Cox]

Well i think you have something to look for when shopping for a new projector -- now it is matter of separating the "wheat from the chaff" in the thread and put together a check list for reference - you are not done yet

ken

[JRR]

Well i think you have something to look for when shopping for a new projector -- now it is matter of separating the "wheat from the chaff" in the thread and put together a check list for reference - you are not done yet

ken

Ken:

Didn't there was much wheat around Sarnia - just oil

You have a thresher we could borrow to separate the wheat from the chaff ?