Digital Projectors and PTE

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Dave

Sorry, but I was just winding the spring.

I am so pleased to be able to find a reserve projector at a price I could afford I was just crowing about it. All the technical waffle I copied from a web site.

Where I live many camera clubs are run on a shoestring & don't have vast amounts of money to spend on gear, some don't have or would never be able to afford a Canon SX60 or any projector in that price range. This was a message to them that there is life without HD. Please excuse my brevity. (Xaver Brevity = Joke)

Regards Eric

[Ed Overstreet]

Where I live many camera clubs are run on a shoestring & don't have vast amounts of money to spend on gear, some don't have or would never be able to afford a Canon SX60 or any projector in that price range. This was a message to them that there is life without HD.

I'd like to second Eric's message. Even a large and relatively-well-heeled camera club like mine can't afford to buy a new projector or other display device every couple of years, on top of other demands from members for studio equipment, darkroom equipment (yes we still have members who shoot film and go into a dark room and play with chemicals!), room and facilities rental fees, etc. Not to mention most individual photographers who can't afford or justify to their spouses and families the expense of any digital projector, never mind one that is state-of-the-art, never mind buy the latest/greatest whatever whenever it is released. We make do with what we have, or try to -- hence concerns by me and others about getting some decent PZR projection out of the projectors that we presently can access and use. We'll certainly bear in mind the need for something better once it's time for replacement (and we have squirreled away the capital budget for it), but until then we need to cope with what we have.

[FlightDeck]

Right here I wish to commend FlightDeck on his maintaining a civil stance in this thread.

Appreciated Colin. It...wasn't...easy {twitch, twitch} Let's just say it's a good thing my divine maker was wise enough to *not* supply me with a big red "Smite" button.

Regards,

KDJ

[FlightDeck]

I took a break from this topic due to many frustrations with lack of headway and a premium on my time to support the effort to find mitigation. Having since seen the reply from Igor I've decided to add a few additional comments.

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

Though I do understand what you mean, saying it has nothing to do with PTE is not entirely correct, to play devil's advocate. Before using a particular ouput device, one must always be sure that the input is appropriate for that device. Providing a device with an input it can't use and "blaming" the output device is not particularly responsible from an engineering point of view. With software we are always pushing the limits of output devices, because it's so easy to do so, and when the output device can't deliver, we blame the hardware. This is of course not unique to PTE software and has been endemic of the computer software-hardware divide for decades. Hardware blames the software, and vice versa. My point is that if there are options available on the software side that *may* better tailor its output to a particular output device, then it should be tried before blaming the hardware. Of course not all software companies do this all the time, owing to the shear number of software-hardware combinations and their related incompatibilities.

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.

Brian this wouldn't really matter. *How* the graphics are generated is immaterial once the signal is sent to the output device. SVG and other graphics techniques are on *software-side*, combined with related processing by the graphics cards. But once a particular frame of the display has been computed, regardless of how it was generated, it is formatted essentially as a static "bitmap" image for the output device. A monitor, projector, etc., simply receive this static data and display it according to their own designs.

Now if you are instead referring to the high *frame rates* that are associated with these types of graphics, then yes, I agree, the manufacturers may not be committing that their projectors can reproduce those high frame rates without encountering problems. And I believe that is precisely the issue here, an incompatibility between the high frame rate generated by PTE and the inability of some projector models to receive frames at such high rates and project them appropriately. Thus my suggestion to WnSoft to test a reduction in frame rate as a trade-off between maximized animation smoothness and minimized unwanted artifacts due to projector limitations.

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, I think you're on a separate topic. The discussion here concerns the issues of using PTE in what I call it's "native mode", running an .EXE file or PTE directly to display a slideshow on a digital projector. It is not about generating TV-compatible slideshows, or video file formats from PTE. Unfortunately from your post and subsequent ones from others in this thread, it appears the discussion has wandered into the topic of TV-compatible slideshows. When discussing the issues of using PTE in the native mode, i.e., running from an .EXE file, we must set aside any considerations of video formats, TV standards, etc., as they simply don't apply, and are only relevant in that they provide some insight into what the digital projector hardware may have been designed for, and thus possible limitations. I don't deny that there is useful info to be used in understanding the TV side of things, however I think we're getting all wrapped around the axle by focusing on it and confusing the issue. I also note that you are mixing up *analog* television standards such as NTSC and PAL with *digital* TV "standards" in the same discussion, which is causing further confusion.

Regards,

KDJ

[FlightDeck]

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.

Igor, I appreciate your reply and the time you took to respond. Regret we got to this point.

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.

As we had received no response/suggestions from WnSoft, none of these options were known to us. Also, as mentioned in the previous thread http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9354, I have requested other users to test DVI connections as I do not have access to a digital projector myself (I am trying to help some people who do have one). Unfortunately, no users have replied that they've tried a DVI conenction and the results. Until other users here begin posting the results of using a DVI connection, there is no feedback I can provide.

Also note that the issue we're discussing is not limited to the Canon SX50, but affects multiple brands and models of digital projectors. Of course what helps one projector may also help for the others, but let's not lose sight that there is more than just the Canon SX50 showing these problems.

- 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?

Again, hopefully some other users can test this with their equipment and report the results so we can all see if it has a positive effect.

- 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.

And this may be true, 30 Hz may be no good for smooth animations. I'm only suggesting it is something to try to see the effect. At the very least, if it cures the issue of projector problems, then we should know for certain that frame rate incompatibility really is the problem. Also, I suggest if it's possible to try user-defined frame rates instead of a fixed value such as 30 Hz. It may be that only a very small reduction in frame rate is required, maybe only a few Hz. This would keep the frame rate high enough to maintain smooth animations, while avoiding the projector frame rate problems. Again, it's a trade-off / optimization between two bad effects.

Will you be producing a special test version of PTE with a reduced frame rate to test this problem?

Thanks and regards,

KDJ

[FlightDeck]

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

Xaver, I think it's not clear in the Canon SX-50 manual whether the frequencies are *required for the input*, or whether they are instead the frequencies of the projector's *output*. I am suspecting it is the latter, i.e., in a particular mode the project's output may be 60 Hz but this would not prevent giving the projector an input of 50 Hz.

Regards,

KDJ

[FlightDeck]

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.

Brian, as mentioned in my previous post, I think we are getting well off the topic of this thread by discussing digital TV formats, etc., inside of sticking to the issues of compatibility of PTE slideshows from .EXE output to digital projectors.

In any case, if you believe that there will be one single standard that will be applied to anything worldwide and be here to stay, I have a quote for you that I read once on a website: "I like standards. There are so many to choose from."

Regards,

KDJ

[Lin Evans]

snip

As we had received no response/suggestions from WnSoft, none of these options were known to us. Also, as mentioned in the previous thread http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9354, I have requested other users to test DVI connections as I do not have access to a digital projector myself (I am trying to help some people who do have one). Unfortunately, no users have replied that they've tried a DVI conenction and the results. Until other users here begin posting the results of using a DVI connection, there is no feedback I can provide.

Would it not be prudent to go to other forums which are specific to the projector you are using to learn of compatibility issues and potential work-arounds rather than expecting the developers of PTE to solve hardware issues?

The fact that some projectors work fine with PTE high frequency frame rate animations should be defacto evidence that the problem lies with the projectors not with the software. Why don't you vary the frequency rate on an AVI generation and try it with your projector rather than expect the software developer to add a feature to facilitate multiple frequency output.

PTE means "PicturesToExe" which is first and foremost what the software is designed to do. Just because you "can" attempt to play a higher frequency rate animations on equipment which can't handle it doesn't mean you "should."

Also note that the issue we're discussing is not limited to the Canon SX50, but affects multiple brands and models of digital projectors. Of course what helps one projector may also help for the others, but let's not lose sight that there is more than just the Canon SX50 showing these problems.

snip

Yes, what it means is that PTE is advanced technology and these projectors which will not play the output are not capable of playing the higher frequency framerate animations smoothly. Technology moves at a rapid pace. You can't run Vista 64 on a computer system designed to run Windows 98 either. Does this mean that Microsoft should make Vista 64 backwardly compatible to run on outdated computer equipment?

The developers of PTE already include two graphical engines so that should users want to run slideshows on yesterday's computers and/or projectors they can do so by avoiding PZR. Should club members want to run PZR with PTE then either purchase a big screen 1080P LCD or Plasma television or display which is a superior solution (and cheaper), or get an updated projector which can handle it.

And this may be true, 30 Hz may be no good for smooth animations. I'm only suggesting it is something to try to see the effect. At the very least, if it cures the issue of projector problems, then we should know for certain that frame rate incompatibility really is the problem. Also, I suggest if it's possible to try user-defined frame rates instead of a fixed value such as 30 Hz. It may be that only a very small reduction in frame rate is required, maybe only a few Hz. This would keep the frame rate high enough to maintain smooth animations, while avoiding the projector frame rate problems. Again, it's a trade-off / optimization between two bad effects.

Again, create an AVI or MPEG II with slower framerates and try it. The software already has that capabililty. Why ask the developer to add yet another feature which will be obsolete in a short time just to "try" to fix a hardware problem which has already been addressed with more progressive projectors??

Will you be producing a special test version of PTE with a reduced frame rate to test this problem?

I certainly can't answer for the developers, but IMHO it would be a waste of effort to produce a "special test version of PTE" to test earlier versions of projectors for a hardware problem which has already been addressed by the manufacturer of that hardware.

When did the club purchase the projector? Was PTE 5.0 beta already available. Did anyone actually try PZR effects with the projector before purchasing it? Time marches on and the technology curve is steep and logrithmic. If PTE 5.0 beta was available at the time of the projector purchase, and many members of the club were using it, it would have been prudent to "try" it first. If the projector was purchased before PTE 5.0 beta was available ( a couple years now, or more I believe) it's probably time to replace it or get a big screen HD monitor or TV instead.

Lin

Thanks and regards,

KDJ

[Lin Evans]

snip...

snip.......... to play devil's advocate. Before using a particular ouput device, one must always be sure that the input is appropriate for that device.

Isn't that exactly what you (members of the club) have failed to do (be sure that the input is appropriate)? You have determined that the input to the projector from the PTE high frame rate output is not appropriate for your device (the projector).

Providing a device with an input it can't use and "blaming" the output device is not particularly responsible from an engineering point of view.

It's just as responsible from an engineering point of view as blaming the input device (PTE) because the output device (the projector) can't handle the input.

You can put gasoline in a diesel engine and the results will not be favorable. Because you "can" doesn't mean you should. Would you blame the manufacturer of the gasoline product because your diesel engine can't run on it? LOL...

With software we are always pushing the limits of output devices, because it's so easy to do so, and when the output device can't deliver, we blame the hardware. This is of course not unique to PTE software and has been endemic of the computer software-hardware divide for decades. Hardware blames the software, and vice versa.

"Blame" is a poor term to use. "Responsible for results" makes much more sense. If you pour nitromethane into the gasoline tank of an automobile engine designed to run on low octane gasoline the effect will not be pretty. The low octane gasoline engine was not designed for the pressures generated in the combustion chamber. The main bearings, valves, rods (if any) etc., were not designed for the pressures generated by the racing fuel. Yes, you "could" downgrade the nitromethane chemically so that it no longer produced the high combustion chamber pressures but then it wouldn't be nitromethane, would it?

The club projector was not designed for high frame rate animations. Downgrading PTE to make it work with yesterday's hardware technology would make it no longer the PTE product as it has been designed.

My point is that if there are options available on the software side that *may* better tailor its output to a particular output device, then it should be tried before blaming the hardware. Of course not all software companies do this all the time, owing to the shear number of software-hardware combinations and their related incompatibilities.

There is no "blame," only an explanation of results. The club projector as well as many other projectors were not designed to run high frame rate animations smoothly. Newer projectors will handle it. The software (PTE) already has facilities for producing AVI files with adjustable frame rates via differential third party codecs. One can't have their cake and eat it too. To see what happens with the projector and lower frame rates simply generate several AVI files with different frame rates and try them. It takes only minutes to do this. To modify PTE or make a "special" test version takes perhaps weeks and hundreds of man hours to do. Expediency favors the former.

Lin

snip....

Regards,

KDJ

[FlightDeck]

(For some reason the forum's Quote function is not working today...)

Lin, thank-you for the time you took to reply. It seems we're not working together. You've explained you think WnSoft should not try any experiments as possible help for some of its PTE users, and gave many analogies of why. Since you've said you're not part of the development team, I don't understand why you would take such a firm non-neutral position, especially as a Moderator, against what they might try to help some other customers. Please correct me if I am mis-reading this.

In any case, I'm not seeking a who-to-blame debate between software and hardware---it's an incompatibility between the two. I am only trying to help generate ideas and give specific technical suggestions that might help, regardless of whether it's for the software, hardware, or both. Yes, trying a new projector is probably a perfect fix, but there are many who can't afford that option. Does that mean PTE should eat the expense instead with software changes? Of course not, I'm only suggesting there may be some relief on the software side that may not have been considered. As always, no guarantees it would work either, and ultimately it remains up to WnSoft to decided whether or not to pursue. For the users, you're correct, avoiding use of those effects may be all that can be done, in the absence of either a "more-compatible" projector or a software feature to mitigate the issue.

As I mentioned earlier (you quoted it in your reply), I do not have ready access to a projector to do all these tests myself. I acknowledge the suggestions you've echoed, such as trying an AVI, etc., however I'm not in position to do these myself. This leaves me feeling like a severed arm, frustrated that I can't put much more into this than ideas, as I have no quick access to hardware to play with. Other users having the issues would have to try them and post the results, as suggested a few times. (With the lack of response so far, however, maybe it really is just one projector having problems ) Regarding AVI however, there were several replies, this thread included, that indicated "it doesn't/wouldn't work", though it wasn't clear to me if those were actual results, or conjecture. Wish I could try them myself to confirm either way. Unfortunately that discussion around AVI files wandered into a separate issue of making AVI look as good as HD TV and films, etc., which is an entirely different ball of wax...

It strikes me that we're stuck. I can't make other users test the various suggestions such as reduced-frame-rate AVI files, or Igor's suggestions of DVI connections, reduced refresh rate, windowed mode, etc., nor can I make WnSoft try a software experiment. The ideas are out there, hopefully little by little users will find relief in some shape or form so we can all enjoy the great PZR features on projectors. Maybe new projectors will go on a big sale soon

Back to the photography...

Regards,

KDJ