Digital Projectors and PTE

[Lin Evans]

New Topic for FlightDeck:

[FlightDeck]

Thanks, Lin! I also plan rework other pages, too. The main page still in progress.

First photo - Kirov (my city). Second one - Loch Lochy in Scotland. Third photo - again Kirov.

P.S. Beta testing of v5.7 will begin in 4-6 weeks.

Pardon me for being political, but I think there are many users who are more interested in seeing an update to PTE that addresses the pan/zoom issues with digital projectors (discussed here http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....showtopic=9354) than are interested in seeing some new photos on the website. Or at the very least a response from WnSoft that acknowledges the problem and indicates that something is being done about it, rather than being ignored. Does the v5.7 bring any fixes for this problem??

Thanks,

KDJ

[coopernatural]

Pardon me for being political, but I think there are many users who are more interested in seeing an update to PTE that addresses the pan/zoom issues with digital projectors (discussed here http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....showtopic=9354) than are interested in seeing some new photos on the website. Or at the very least a response from WnSoft that acknowledges the problem and indicates that something is being done about it, rather than being ignored. Does the v5.7 bring any fixes for this problem??

Thanks,

KDJ

Some recommended reading.

http://tinyurl.com/2tbnqf

[xahu34]

... Pardon me for being political, but I think there are many users who are more interested in seeing an update to PTE that addresses the pan/zoom issues with digital projectors ... Does the v5.7 bring any fixes for this problem ...

KDJ,

It may be a matter of discussion, if your contribution is political, or not. Regarding the said tearing problem, I am pretty sure that it is a particular matter of the Canon SX50. With the SX50 the same problem also shows up in productions made with m.objects, while using the SX60 they never occur (PTE and m.objects). You should not ask the impossible!

Regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

Hi,

I have to apologize that my above post contributes to the fact that this topic is about to loose its way, I am sorry. Regarding the new Web page, I'm not that much impressed. But this should not be a matter to worry about!

Regards,

Xaver

[Lin Evans]

You are being a bit rude for hijacking the thread for your personal interests. Perhaps beginning a new thread to discuss your concerns about digital projectors would make more sense?

I am moving this part of the thread to a new topic for you.

Lin

Pardon me for being political, but I think there are many users who are more interested in seeing an update to PTE that addresses the pan/zoom issues with digital projectors (discussed here http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....showtopic=9354) than are interested in seeing some new photos on the website. Or at the very least a response from WnSoft that acknowledges the problem and indicates that something is being done about it, rather than being ignored. Does the v5.7 bring any fixes for this problem??

Thanks,

KDJ

[xahu34]

FlightDeck's contribution can be regarded as polemical. I don't think that he really wants a discussion on the projector subject. But making up this new thread, in my eyes it's an overreaction.

Regards,

Xaver

[cjdnzl]

Pardon me for being political, but I think there are many users who are more interested in seeing an update to PTE that addresses the pan/zoom issues with digital projectors (discussed here http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....showtopic=9354) than are interested in seeing some new photos on the website. Or at the very least a response from WnSoft that acknowledges the problem and indicates that something is being done about it, rather than being ignored. Does the v5.7 bring any fixes for this problem??

Thanks,

KDJ

No, I don't think I can pardon you for your 'political' stance. You are forgetting - or just do not know since you have only posted here 6 times - that the relationship between Igor and forum members is unique and valuable, and not to be undermined with sentiments such as you display with your post.

PTE is a very modestly priced program at about $US 49 including lifetime updates, but your attitude is more appropriate to a $600 program from some giant like MS or Adobe.

To address your apparent problem; it is quite obvious from the remarks and information presented on the thread dealing with projectors that the fault lies with certain projectors rather than PTE, so I consider you are out of order demanding that Igor 'fix' a program which has yet to be found broken.

Colin

[FlightDeck]

No, I don't think I can pardon you for your 'political' stance. You are forgetting - or just do not know since you have only posted here 6 times - that the relationship between Igor and forum members is unique and valuable, and not to be undermined with sentiments such as you display with your post.

PTE is a very modestly priced program at about $US 49 including lifetime updates, but your attitude is more appropriate to a $600 program from some giant like MS or Adobe.

To address your apparent problem; it is quite obvious from the remarks and information presented on the thread dealing with projectors that the fault lies with certain projectors rather than PTE, so I consider you are out of order demanding that Igor 'fix' a program which has yet to be found broken.

Colin

Perhaps I can offer some insight then that prompted my post, some of which you're already no doubt aware as you've been following the thread in question concerning projector issues. Users began reporting issues with *multiple makes and models* of projectors almost half a year ago, and reporting them in the forum. In addition, some users have directly contacted WnSoft tech support to report these problems, provide information they hope will help, and requesting some feedback on what they can do. They have not received any responses at all. Note that some of these users are part of the same 300-member club of amateur and professional photographers in my city.

When I learned of the issues, being an experienced engineer and having access to a network of others with expertise in this field, I began doing some theorizing, designing some tests, etc., that could help zero in on the issue---is it hardware, software, combination, etc? The results of that are all posted in the other thread: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9354

As part of this, I came up with a potential software fix. No guarantee, but the possibility is there. I contacted WnSoft tech support directly with the detailed proposal for the possible solution, recommending that WnSoft try implementing it into an alpha-test version of PTE to see if it has the desired effect. Response? None. After a few weeks, I contacted again. Received a reply it would be forwarded to Igor. More time passes, no response. I contacted again, still no response. I'm certain you can appreciate that this complete lack of response from WnSoft to multiple users, without even an acknowledgment of "we're looking into it" would cause a fairly high level of frustration. And then, to see Igor Kokarev himself posting that he is updating images on the website instead of responding to users and working on solutions, well, with the sincerest of respect to Mr. Kokarev, he needs to appreciate how disrespectful that appears to his customers.

Look, none of us in our club are expecting WnSoft to guarantee to fix the problem. It may be it can't be fixed at all on the software side, and that we need manufacturers to develop a new generation of projectors across the board to get better results. Not much we can do about that if true. The present issue here is that WnSoft has been completely non-responsive on the issue for months, even despite having received some very valuable technical recommendations from some highly credentialed engineers (for free I might add). All any of us are asking for is some kind of acknowledgement that the problem and ideas are being examined. I think that would be a great courtesy after the months that users have been waiting. And for myself, I was hoping for some direct dialogue towards implementing my technical recommendations into an alpha-test version of PTE to see if it presents some relief on the problem.

You are correct in implying that I have little vested interest in the forum here. That is precisely why I stepped up to support my club mates to see if I could help identify the problem based on some engineering assessments, and help provide WnSoft some possible solutions. I also have little vested interest in the PTE product. I think it's a great tool, developed from what is obviously a very small shop (probably a one-man-show). However if it's not delivering on primary requirements such as working well on digital projectors, and there are *possible* software fixes that the company is unwilling to try or to even acknowledge user reports of problems, and instead chooses to prioritize cosmetic website updates, well, then that leaves little option but to find another company who may be willing to assess the ideas for their product. Apologies if I've irked the community dynamic here, but the users deserve some kind of response from WnSoft. Little more I can say really.

I await with some hope the WnSoft will offer some acknowledgment of this issue, and perhaps even share some insight into plans to work on it.

Thanks and regards,

KDJ

[Lin Evans]

For an "engineer" with what appears to be a very high opinion of your own skills and knowledge, you have expressed very little understanding of what is involved in developing software for a wide variety of hardware applications.

Let's begin with your statement below:

....then, to see Igor Kokarev himself posting that he is updating images on the website instead of responding to users and working on solutions, well, with the sincerest of respect to Mr. Kokarev, he needs to appreciate how disrespectful that appears to his customers.

Igor did not say, nor did he "imply" that he was "updating" images on the website "instead" of responding to users and working on solutions" - that's your very naive interpretation and shows a total lack of knowledge about the history of Wnsoft and the activities of the development team. Had you taken a bit of time to familiarize yourself with the history of this company you would know better. Those of us who have been around for a few years find "your" comments very disrespectful and your attitude both arrogant and ignorant of how things are and have been done with this product.

Your comments:

... despite having received some very valuable technical recommendations from some highly credentialed engineers (for free I might add)....

such as the above, not only express arrogance, but also portray black or white stilted thinking. There are numerous issues on the development table for this product which have been, and are being researched. You apparently haven't been around long enough to realize that there are many talented engineers and scientists among the forum members here working in harmony with the Wnsoft development team. These members do not insult the intelligence of the developers with arrogance and threats.

Your statement:

...well, then that leaves little option but to find another company who may be willing to assess the ideas for their product....

once again shows how little you really know about this product and its history or about presentation slideshow software companies in general.

Do yourself a giant favor and learn a bit more about both Wnsoft and PTE before alienating the very people who produce the finest product of its type with the very best upgrade policy and price available anywhere.

All things happen in their own good time and they will happen quicker without the creation of conflict. You took it upon yourself to hijack a thread complementing the company on the addition of a simple web page - something not done by the software development team and an action which takes no time away from development or debugging of the product. You did this to create a platform to express your opinions about one issue which has already been thoroughly discussed.

You were told that the issue is with the projectors and not with the software, but still you argue. You assume that it might be possible to correct the "issue" by lowering the frame rate to video standards, but fail to understand that the majority of users of this product are interested in ultimate image quality in animation which is greatly enhanced by this higher framerate made possible by the very heart and soul of PTE, its hardware rendering which uses the power of the GPU. It's already possible to lower the framerate by creating an AVI video at 29.97 fps, but you appear to want PTE to work like "you" want it to rather than how is was designed.

Lin

[FlightDeck]

First, I need to clarify that I do not speak on behalf of the photography club I mentioned above---statements are my own. I was merely pointing out that my club has other PTE users in that real-life group who have been battling this issue for months. And being that the club is large, issues experienced by a few users can quickly become a concern for many.

Lin Evans,

Following your comments here:

For an "engineer" with what appears to be a very high opinion of your own skills and knowledge, you have expressed very little understanding of what is involved in developing software for a wide variety of hardware applications.

...not only express arrogance, but also portray black or white stilted thinking.

...These members do not insult the intelligence of the developers with arrogance and threats.

I will assume that you are not a representative of WnSoft and not replying upon their behalf. Owing to your apparent long-standing involvement with and loyalty to WnSoft, I can understand your comments. However as much I have admitted to and have apologized for upsetting others here, I propose that your comments above are similarly non-productive. (If I may particularly caution on the use of the word "threats", as there has been no such occurrence, and as I work in a security field, that is a "red-flag" word that should be handled with care.)

My post was perhaps not clear, as I didn't describe myself as "highly credentialed"---I was referring to the other engineers with whom I consulted, and duly maintain that they are fully deserving of such accolades. Myself I limited to "experienced", which is factual and not egoistic.

In any case, as you have some long-standing history, you may not readily appreciate the service issue I'm pointing out as a new customer. I am not trying to stir polemical debate nor insult WnSoft, employees, contributors, and users. I am identifying that as a customer of WnSoft, I have been contacting their tech support several times and receiving no reponse and also that other users have similarly been "ignored". While admittedly ill-considered, it seemed to me that after months of being ignored, perhaps pinging Mr. Kokarev through the forum here was the only last-ditch effort to get WnSoft to respond to these users.

Upon re-reading the license agreement I note no mention of tech support, so perhaps I naively expected it was part of the package. In any case, I would think that WnSoft could at least acknowledge customers contacting it via tech support.

Do yourself a giant favor and learn a bit more about both Wnsoft and PTE before....

In all fairness to myself and other users with frustration, I would offer for consideration that this should not be a prerequisite for a customer to receive a response from WnSoft tech support. Would you agree?

All things happen in their own good time and they will happen quicker without the creation of conflict.

Agreed. Would you like to let it settle there, and you and I focus now on the original technical topic itself? You comment:

You were told that the issue is with the projectors and not with the software.

No, again, I have received *no* response from WnSoft. Or are you referring to a forum post from another user? You have to appreciate that as a customer I can not consider that as authoritative from WnSoft---though certainly I pay attention to those suggestions/opinions all the same. In any case, yes, as explained at length on the forum here http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....=100#entry63449, I fully appreciate there is a very real hardware component to the issue and, on that front, unfortunately, there is probably little we can do than wait for new hardware to materialize in the coming years that might fortuitously resolve it.

You assume that it might be possible to correct the "issue" by lowering the frame rate to video standards, but fail to understand that the majority of users of this product are interested in ultimate image quality in animation which is greatly enhanced by this higher framerate..{snip}.. It's already possible to lower the framerate by creating an AVI video at 29.97 fps".

I suggested, I didn't "assume". For convenience, here is the suggestion I originally posted {emphasis added}:

"...make an alpha-test build with the option to manually set the maximum frame rate the software sends to the video driver. Users could then experiment with the setting to set the lowest fps that minimizes jitters/wipes, while remaining high enough to minimize video judder between frames."

Note clearly that this is a "lesser of evils" optimization exercise, not a black-and-white "fix", and I can offer no guarantees it will bring relief. But the technical principles and potential pay-offs are certainly sound enough that it could be tried. I also consider that it may very well be totally incompatible with WnSoft's architecture, thus making the whole exercise a non-starter. But WnSoft should be able to readily comment on the feasibility aspect.

Regarding AVI, it would have been great for WnSoft tech support to suggest using an AVI as a possible solution. However, in the absence of any response from WnSoft, it had been my understanding from other user testimonial (off-line) that the AVI has a lower image resolution than .EXE and is thus undesirable for image quality. Perhaps I misunderstood and/or this is not the case. Can you comment?

Thanks and regards,

KDJ

[cjdnzl]

Right here I wish to commend FlightDeck on his maintaining a civil stance in this thread. I have seen many a thread develop into a very nasty outcome with fewer differences than this one.

Having said that, FD wrote and I quote:

"Regarding AVI, it would have been great for WnSoft tech support to suggest using an AVI as a possible solution. However, in the absence of any response from WnSoft, it had been my understanding from other user testimonial (off-line) that the AVI has a lower image resolution than .EXE and is thus undesirable for image quality. Perhaps I misunderstood and/or this is not the case. Can you comment?"

The outstanding characteristic of PTE is the image quality delivered in .exe files. No question that it is among the best, if not the actual best of all slideshow programmes at any price. This is the prime feature that keeps PTE devotees loyal to Igor and PTE. But there is a need for being able to run slideshows on television sets, which means .avi image files and DVDs.

The regular TV specs for 4:3 type sets include a definition standard of 720 x 576 pixels for PAL receivers, and a slightly different standard for NTSC receivers. Reducing the pixel count from a 1910 x 1200 (is that right?) or even an old-hat 1024 x 768 monitor down to 720 x 576 represents a considerable loss of image quality, about which nothing can be done. Of course newer TV hi-definition standards deliver better pictures, but are still no match for a good monitor.

Colin

[xahu34]

... it had been my understanding from other user testimonial (off-line) that the AVI has a lower image resolution than .EXE and is thus undesirable for image quality. Perhaps I misunderstood and/or this is not the case. Can you comment?

You can create an AVI at any resolution using the PicturesToExe Video Codec. This delivers a temporary AVI which serves as a frame server. It is a very small file, and it will only exist as long as the corresponding instance of the PTE application is running. This AVI is uncompressed, and it can be transcoded, e.g. with Windows Media Encoder into a WMV video, or using MeGUI/x264 into a H.264 video ...

Regards,

Xaver

[Conflow]

Hi Guys,

I have followed this thread and its companion thread with much interest and in fairness to 'Flight Deck' he has a very valid point

of view and I being one of many who have been in direct contact with him appreciate his efforts in trying to provide an 'interim'

fix to a very nasty problem being experienced by those who use Pte with Projectors. (This has nothing to do with PTE).

To balance that statement, it has been my experience that the WnSoft Team come up with 'solutions' not excuses and yes there

have been delays in the past in solving such issues ~ that does not mean the problem is being ignored, its simply the way WnSoft

work's and goes about such problems.

So let's get the fact's straight,viz:-

1) Igor and the WnSoft team were 'forced' into a situation where Pte.Customers wanted to see their Slideshows on Television.

2) A Team was hastily assembled to develop a (simple) Utility to make that happen ~ they did, but the quality factor was poor.

3) They are now being 'forced' into another situation to get Pte running on various Projectors where no EIA Standards exist.

4) The only Standards relative to Projectors are TV-Standards NTSC and PAL (4:3 and 16:9) and simple VGA Graphics.

Considerations:-

(a)

To my knowledge No Projector Manufacturer has ever claimed their Projector will work with Motion-Vectored Graphics nor will they

work with SVG-Graphics ~ and that's what Pan-Zoom-Rotate are all about....apart alltogether from any quality considerations.

(

'Pix-Builder Studio' is a Graphics-Editor Program designed for Image enhancement for Web usage and for DVD making. That implies

it must be capable of making a Video-AVI for burning on to a DVD Disc for showing on a TV-Set. (Lack of quality is a known factor).

(c )

Codecs...You can try as many of these as you like. You will never emulate a Commercial DVD nor TV-Signal because codec's only

address the Video content of a commercial signal which is a very small part of the overall 'TV-Composite Video-Signal' which can be

reproduced on to a Commercial-DVD after some very, very, complex modifications. (Commercial DVD are Printed-On not Burnt-On)

Finally:-

If one assumes that a Homemade-AVI can compete against the quality of a Commercial TV-Signal or Commercial-DVD as seen on

a Projector ~ then I'm afraid that person is a optimistic dreamer because it simply can't be done with available Home-Technology.

The complexity is like comparing a Mouse to an Elephant both in terms of Graphic-Management and Signal Composition and unless

one has a fundamental understanding of the "NTSC/PAL Composite Video-Signals" one will get no where except wasting their time.

I'm sorry, but all the discussions in this thread and likewise will not change the facts concerning "NTSC/PAL-Composite Video Signals"

which must be used if you want a good quality rendition of your Show on TV or Projector. (A simple Codec will not suffice).

Brian.Conflow.

PS. I would like to add that there is a lot more to this than meets the eye of the casual reader.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Just a quickie on this, and to illustrate Conflow's point. I was watching a news item on my new Panasonic 32inch LCD TV with a built in Freeview receiver. The BBC were showing the new weather cover for the Wimbledon Centre court and panning over the structure. The break-up in picture quality was astronomical and way above anything I have witnessed using PTE. Admittedly it was an outside broadcast, but it surprised me.

Yachtsman1.

[Igor]

KDJ,

Firstly I'm very sorry and apologize that you didn't receive any response nor from me nor from our support person on your request regarding that projector's issue! The most likely your request was forwarded to my email address and I didn't reply yet. For the most difficult technical problems I'm the only one person in our company who can solve it. Here is our problem which I'm trying to resolve.

With the forum we receive the great help of this community and every new user quickly gets all help on his request.

Regarding Canon SX50 issue.

As written above and I've read from here http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/archive/ind...573660-p-3.html it is a hardware problem of this projector and many users experience this problem (not only users of PicturesToExe). The next model - SX60 doesn't have this issue anymore.

- Several users of SX50 recommended set 50Hz (instead of 60Hz) which fixes the problem. I've learned this advice from AVSForum. Did you try to set 50Hz using DVI connection to the projector? Please note that you need DVI digital connection, because VGA connection doesn't allow to utilize 50Hz. Please let me know about result.

- If you are using Windows XP, did you try to modify a project to run slideshow in a windowed mode? Set same width/height size and no border option to simulate fullscreen. Will it give a better visual result?

- We can try to display picture every second frame - simulate 30Hz at 60Hz of real frame rate. Even if it will help, smoothness of show for Pan/Zoom effect will not be enough. Sadly to say but I'm doubt that we can find a good software fix for PicturesToExe if Canon is not able to fix the problem in a firmware update.

[xahu34]

...

- If you are using Windows XP, did you try to modify a project to run slideshow in a windowed mode? Set same width/height size and no border option to simulate fullscreen. Will it give a better visual result?

...

I have doubts that the windowed mode will be helpful here. I learned from the developer of m.objects that this software uses a windowed mode under Win XP. The tearing problems with the SX50 I could see were the same as I noticed when using PTE.

Regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

...

- Several users of SX50 recommended set 50Hz (instead of 60Hz) which fixes the problem. I've learned this advice from AVSForum. Did you try to set 50Hz using DVI connection to the projector? Please note that you need DVI digital connection, because VGA connection doesn't allow to utilize 50Hz. Please let me know about result.

...

50 Hz is not included in the manual's list of Digital RGB signals supported by the Canon SX50.

Regards,

Xaver

[Conflow]

Igor,

From my point of view your response #16 above is very welcome because I personally appreciated the difficulties

facing the WnSoft Team when it comes down to Video-Projector compatbility ~ which is nothing to do with Pte.

As you well know, there are too many 'sub-standards' and variables even within the NTSC/PAL Systems to even

consider the development of a Software-Package to suit the basic TV-Standards never mind the sub-standards

and the Pte 'user choices' of non-standard and non-compatible Image-Sizes which they insist on using....

Personally I am looking forward to getting involved with the (new) International-Digital 1080 Standard which offers

the best chance of Pte quality TV and DVD-reproduction which then spills over into the (new) 1080 Projector Systems

which I previously wrote about.

For Forum Members may I say...."Like it or not Digital Television is here to stay as its now an International Agreement

to overcome our lack of Radio-Space. It's most certain that the Digital 1080 Standard will be adopted Worldwide due

to its cross-system compatibility and good quality, and offers up to 10 times expansion of current Radio-Space.

It's in production as I write this and if I were a Camera Club I would be making efforts to sell my 'Non-1080' Projector

and re-invest the money into the 1080 System. It makes absolute sense when you think about it !!

This opens up the possibility of advancing PTE into the Digital TV-Markets because WnSoft are good with Software.

Best regards,

Brian.Conflow.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

On the other hand, there are some bargains to be had if you ferret around. The 1080 format does not lend itself well to camera club AV where photographers use portrait as much as landscape, so 16-9 not as acceptable as 4-3.

So on the other hand, there are some bargains to be had for the buyer on a strict budget. Recently I assumed my equipment was coming to the end of it’s range with 5.6, so I looked around to see what was available for my budget, as against replacing the £175 bulb on my Nobo projector. I looked at the Sony range & selected the VPL-EX5 LCD at £445 RRP. Then I searched around to find the best price. It may have been a fluke, but a company were advertising one on Amazon for £226 + £3 delivery. My Nobo is DLP so I did nothing overnight, but next morning, I checked the site & the price was still the same. So with the thought in mind that I could un-load it on Ebay if it didn’t come up to scratch, so I bought one. Immediately afterwards, the price went up to £400+. When it arrived, I fired it up and was pleasantly surprised with its performance. Side by side with the Nobo the picture is brighter, larger, and the colours much better. One real benefit is the built in keystone correction which projects the picture at approximately 30 angle to the horizontal. So I’ve carefully packed it away until the day my Nobo bites the dust.

So before jumping on the technology chase, check out the bargains we've been successfully using for years.

Yachtsman1

[davegee]

Eric,

I'm afraid that you are not thinking straight.

Consider a 2:3 portrait image.

On a 4:3 1400x1050 projector that's a 700x1050 image.

On a 16:9 1920x1080 projector that's a 720x1080 image.

The 16:9 format allows you to get more pixels per foot on screen for ANY aspect ratio image at actual pixels.

The figures for a 16:9 image on the two different projectors are as follows:

1400x788 for the 4:3 1400x1050 projector (at actual pixels) - 1,103,200 pixels.

1920x1080 for the 1920x1080 projector (at actual pixels) - 2,073,600 pixels.

If you consider an 8 foot wide image that's 175 pixels per foot for the 1400x1050 projector and 240 pixels per foot for the 1920x1080 projector.

DaveG

[Ken Cox]

many moons ago -- when i was a working stiff - i took some slides 0f safety violations - the company had a professional photographer hired that did all their slide duplication - we were friends - my kids went to school with his kids and we swapped stories at the #1 camera shop in town --

"ken, let me give you some advice, do not shoot vertical if the slides are going to be projected"

39 +- years since, i have followed his advice -- I do listen to people that I respect

-- I think early Mac's had square monitors - windows did not

tv's in North America are rectangular

buying old technology = big mistake

further to the above way back Igor bought a beemer, supplied us with all the specs etc.

I dont believe he would lead anyone astray re the type he bought, so why would a new buyer not buy the same -- if you wanted to know something Igor would tell you just to cover himself -- simple as that

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

OK. Forget AV for a moment, our club projector was bought to show members pictures, either digital or conventional digitised, as well as AV shows.

Resolution, or picture detail, is the main reason why HDTV programs look so good. The standard-definition programming most of us watch today has at most 480 visible lines of detail, whereas HDTV has as many as 1080. HDTV looks sharper and clearer than regular TV by a wide margin, especially on big-screen televisions. It actually comes in two different resolutions, called 1080i and 720p. One is not necessarily better than the other; 1080i has more lines and pixels, but 720p is a progressive-scan format that should deliver a smoother image that stays sharper during motion. Another format is also becoming more well-known: 1080p, which combines the superior resolution of 1080i with the progressive-scan smoothness of 720p. True 1080p content is extremely scarce however, and none of the major networks have announced 1080p broadcasts. Take a look at our comparison chart to see how HDTV competes up against standard TV and progressive-scan DVD.

Name Resolution HDTV Wide-screen? Progressive-scan?

1080p 1920 x 1080 Y Y Y

1080i 1920 x 1080 Y Y N

720p 1280 x 720 Y Y Y

Widescreen 480p (DVD) 852 x 480 N Y Y

Regular TV Up to 480 lines N N N

What is the benefit to me?

HD has 2.1 million or more pixels. That is a lot more picture information and that is what makes HDTV so crisp and detailed.

HD has an aspect ratio of 16:9 versus the 4:3 aspect ratio of analogue. You get one-third more image area and it's that much easier to watch movies in their original format. The 16:9 aspect ratio actually more closely matches the viewing angle of the human eye, making for a more immersive entertainment experience.

HD images are made up of from 720 to 1080 horizontal scan lines. Again, a lot more detail is possible with that much more visual information on the screen.

HDTV can provide 5.1 channel Dolby Digital sound, equal to what you hear in a cinema. Plug in a home theatre audio system and you can hear the distinctions between sound effects, dialogue and music. Analogue can't offer anything close to that!

So why don't I go for it? Basically, the price. I would need a laptop with an HD connection plus a special HD projector with HD input, neither of which I can afford, simple really. To sum up are you saying a digital picture taken on a 3-2 camera shows the same size on an XGA projector as an WSVGA (1024 x 576 pixels projector?

Yachtsman1

[xahu34]

... simple as that ...

Maybe too simple!? (I hope that I was able to understand you high level English correctly )

Xaver

[davegee]

Eric,

I don't really understand your final statement/question but.........

If you take a 3000x2000 image from a digital camera and resize it to suit the three most common laptop/computer configurations you will get the following:

1024x682.666666 for the 1024x768 projector.

1400x933.333333 for the 1400x1050 projtor.

1620x1080 for the 1920x1080 projector.

You may notice that the 1920x1080 is the only format which allows for a 3:2 resized image in WHOLE pixels?

You mentioned a 1024x576 projector - I've never come across one but a 3:2 image resized for this format would be 864x576.

I have ALWAYS worked on the basis that Projector Resolution = Laptop NATIVE Resolution = Image Resolution.

The only time to deviate from this is when PZR is applied to an image.

DaveG