1024 x 768 v 1400 x 1050

[Peter Coles]

I have made well over 100 PTE Sequences and usually project these using a 1024 x 768 projector. Most of the recent 1024 x 768 Sequences made using PTE v 5.6 use .pngs. Am I likely to encounter any problem(s) when playing these on a 1400 x 1050 projector? If so what, if any, change in their behaviour can I expect?

[JRR]

I have made well over 100 PTE Sequences and usually project these using a 1024 x 768 projector. Most of the recent Sequences made using PTE v 5.6 use .pngs. Am I likely to encounter any problem(s) when playing these on a 1400 x 1050 projector? If so what, if any, change in their behaviour can I expect?

Peter: (Haven't seen one of your productions for a while - I miss them)

I project 1280 x 960 images on a 1400x1050 projector quite often. (But I am not using an O&A actions except on one image on one show) There is no problem for me.

I have PROJECT OPTIONS set to not allow for re-sizing, so my shows have a black border to them as they do not fill the screen. But most people allow PTE to upscale them and as far as I know they haven't had any prfblems.

I suspect you have a good number of O&A actions, so to be safe it might be better to get a "ruling" from someone else with your circumstances

[Peter Coles]

Peter: (Haven't seen one of your productions for a while - I miss them)

You can always keep in touch with what I'm up to via www.avpeter.com - there are usually about half-a-dozen recent Sequences to download by any who want to do so.

[fh1805]

Peter,

Earlier this month three of my sequences (which were all built to 1024x768 size) were projected through a HD projector (1920x1280). The only noticeable effect was that they all looked ever-so slightly soft - due to the upsizing of the image by the laptop that was driving the projector. I have recently completed a new sequence built at 1920x1280 and will be interested to see what it looks like when projected through my 1024x768 projector.

regards,

Peter

[Peter Coles]

Peter,

Earlier this month three of my sequences (which were all built to 1024x768 size) were projected through a HD projector (1920x1280). The only noticeable effect was that they all looked ever-so slightly soft - due to the upsizing of the image by the laptop that was driving the projector. I have recently completed a new sequence built at 1920x1280 and will be interested to see what it looks like when projected through my 1024x768 projector.

regards,

Peter

Thanks, Peter.

I am interested to know what happens to the .pngs which are deliberately at a different size to that of the .jpgs. (so that they can move into and out of the frame). I know the .jpgs can be resized OK, but I do not know if the .pngs behave exactly the same within any new format. I did notice that when any black border was left round a .jpg the .png showed into the black space. If the ratio is kept at 4 x 3 as 1024 x 768 is the same ratio as 1400 x 1050, are there still any potential problems? I expect there would be if vertical .jpgs were included, but I never do this anyway. However, I do need to know in case this could affect others' Sequences.

Peter

[davegee]

Peter,

There is a possiblity that the PNG files are not going to behave in the way that you intended.

This is where JPD's system comes into its own - look into it for future projects.

I think that JRR's answer is the one most likely to be of most use.

DaveG

[Ian]

Hi Peter

PNG files will be re-scaled in exactly the same manner as jpgs, so from this point of view there will be no problem. The potential issue is if the png files have smaller pixel dimensions than your background jpgs, then there is a chance that the relative positions of the pngs will shift on screen. Sometimes this might not be noticeable, but if you have some that need to be precisely aligned it would be best to save the png image on exactly the same canvas size as the background. This might entail having a large area of transparancy, but will preserve the relative positions exactly as the scaling will be applied to images of the same dimensions.

Ian

[Peter Coles]

Hi Peter

PNG files will be re-scaled in exactly the same manner as jpgs, so from this point of view there will be no problem. The potential issue is if the png files have smaller pixel dimensions than your background jpgs, then there is a chance that the relative positions of the pngs will shift on screen. Sometimes this might not be noticeable, but if you have some that need to be precisely aligned it would be best to save the png image on exactly the same canvas size as the background. This might entail having a large area of transparancy, but will preserve the relative positions exactly as the scaling will be applied to images of the same dimensions.

Ian

Thanks, Ian.

Your response is most helpful.

This is exactly the sort of thing I suspected, but as I do not yet have a 1400 x 1050 projector, I could not test it.

I have too many Sequences already made to go and alter them all. I'm always too busy looking forward to spend a lot of time in the past. I also expect that we may get a few others who notice minor differences which they regard as major. That's part of the problem: we all notice differences in our own Sequences, whereas others may not! What can seem important to an author may not even be noticed as significant by most viewers.

I would still value any comments from others who may have noticed differences in a switch from 1024 x 768 to 1400 x 1050 (or to any other format).

Peter

[Maureen]

If the older sequences all have the images set at the same size then all should be well.

However when some of the images are larger than others then the larger images will suddenly "jump out" in the new projections and fill more of the screen, depending on the fill screen settings.

Can be quite confusing when viewing.

Have Emailed you Peter.

Love Maureen

[Peter Coles]

If the older sequences all have the images set at the same size then all should be well.

However when some of the images are larger than others then the larger images will suddenly "jump out" in the new projections and fill more of the screen, depending on the fill screen settings.

Can be quite confusing when viewing.

Have Emailed you Peter.

Love Maureen

Thanks for that, Maureen.

To me it does seem very important that, when authors send Sequences to be viewed by others, there should be no confusion. Clear specific directions should be given as to what is required by Organisers of Events. It should never be a "suck-it-and-see" matter. When changes are made, clear expectations need to stated. If authors find their Sequences are played in a way that they were not made, they may decide not to bother sending them again.

Thanks for your e-mail; I have sent a zip of the Sequence you mentioned. Any comments would be appreciated.

Peter

[Ken Cox]

should ther not be a definite standard for all av shows that are being shown at clubs, competitions etc?

and if they do not adhere to the standard turf them

ken

[davegee]

"In the ever changing world in which we're living" Ken, that would mean using the lowest common denominator in projector resolutions - 1024x768 (or even 800x600).

It would also mean that those clubs having 1920x1080 projectors would not be using them to their full potential.

No, it will ONLY all even out when everyone gets 1920x1080.

DaveG

[Ken Cox]

Dave

when i had to write operating instuctions we had to practice KISS and the lowest common denominator factor

we had to work on what we called "OPERATING DISCIPLE" FORMAT - a lot of "what if" came into the picture and they all had to be answered

there seems to be so many problems with aspect ratio and projectors -- imho i dont think a lot of people know how their hardware works --- they should be spending time RTM

instead of rushing out and buying a "cheap" projector they should be asking the RPS what the standard they use and act accordingly

I know " it is easy to say" but the results would show it. Instead of slapping your head trying to figure out what am i doing wrong the extra time would be used to relax with a pint or 2

ken

[Ken Cox]

some info here to muddy the water

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)

ken

[Peter Coles]

Dave

when i had to write operating instuctions we had to practice KISS and the lowest common denominator factor

we had to work on what we called "OPERATING DISCIPLE" FORMAT - a lot of "what if" came into the picture and they all had to be answered

there seems to be so many problems with aspect ratio and projectors -- imho i dont think a lot of people know how their hardware works --- they should be spending time RTM

instead of rushing out and buying a "cheap" projector they should be asking the RPS what the standard they use and act accordingly

I know " it is easy to say" but the results would show it. Instead of slapping your head trying to figure out what am i doing wrong the extra time would be used to relax with a pint or 2

ken

UK National Championships

I had some initial concerns about the way 1024 x 768 Sequences would play on a projector 1400 x 1050. I expressed these concerns to the organisers. Today, 30th May, friends from Leeds AV Group brought one of these projecters to my home, here at Lacy House Farm. I am considerably relieved to find that, provided the format is exactly the same, ie. 4 x 3, then all play OK. For any who have made Sequences with a 3 x 2 format, I would still have serious concerns unless, in PTE, under Project Options/Screen/ the "Fixed size of slide" is ticked. Otherwise, pngs would appear to come in from any black space above/and/orbelow the main frame of the jpg images. It is important that all authors, using any other than a 4 x 3 format, recognise this otherwise they could be disappointed with the performance of their entries, particularly if pngs are included.

This must reassure most authors and encourage them to send their Sequences to our most important National event. To find out more visit: www.avg.rps.org or contact brian-jeffs@tiscali.co.uk

[Maureen]

Think you should have pointed people directly to the web site for the UK Nationals Peter

http://www.navc.org.uk/

Hope to see you there

Also it is only for UK entries this year but next year we will be holding the International Championships again. (at Cirencester ?)

Three Groups in the South of England already use 1920px by 1080px projectors.

RPS Wessex, WAVES AV group and Wantage AV Group have all bought the Optoma projectors and we are making sequences for 1920 by 1080 - great to see your work projected on the new HD televisions too.

Many people will pay lots of money for their camera gear, computer and then cut corners with projectors and screen, also paying very little heed to the need for calibrating the computer with the projector.

Be aware of the following :

Concerns with cheap screens

Cheap screens with black marks on them can melt and even cause fires under intense light from projectors with an output greater than 3500 lumen. ^[9]

^{http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projection_screen}

^{I think a future issue (not for PTE) will be with the development of special new screens especially for digital projection. We have already seen some camera clubs are using a large wall to project onto and some of the sequences can then show some strange colour casts, even when the wall looks quite white and clean. Just be aware of this.}

^{Meanwhile have fun making your sequences.}

[tc_leeds]

Three Groups in the South of England already use 1920px by 1080px projectors.

RPS Wessex, WAVES AV group and Wantage AV Group have all bought the Optoma projectors and we are making sequences for 1920 by 1080 - great to see your work projected on the new HD televisions too.

Hi Maureen et al,

I have seen various discussions/emails re resolution/aspect ratio/image size and there is still no standard or clarity for those involved in competition work. As sequences tend to be fairly lengthy in terms of obtaining images and production then organisers should be offering some guidance on this. As modern digital SLR cameras use a 3:2 format consideration must be given to the composition of the image when taking the photograph as cropping will occur if using either the 4:3, 5:4 or the wide screen format.

However, I am interested to know a little more about the 1920 x 1080 projectors, what distance does it have to be from the screen to fill it. Now I know that that depends on the size of the screen but understand that at a recent competition one of these projectors had to moved to the back of the hall before the image was any where near large enough due to the throw of the lens as even at full zoom the image was too small when closer to the screen. If this is the case then would they be suitable for say small club rooms where they would more regularly be used.

As always technology marches on and I guess this discussion will rear its head again in the future.

Interesting reading as always

All the best

TonyC

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Many people will pay lots of money for their camera gear, computer and then cut corners with projectors and screen, also paying very little heed to the need for calibrating the computer with the projector.

I think this statement is a little eliteist and aimed at the technology chasers. The majority of camera clubs where I live can only just afford a basic projector, the RPS of all people should cater for all (dare I say it) classes of photographers.

Yachtsman1.

[Peter Coles]

Think you should have pointed people directly to the web site for the UK Nationals Peter

http://www.navc.org.uk/

I am sure you are right, Maureen, I was merely quoting from the bits of paper I received labelled "Information Pack" !

Following Eddie's visit, yesterday, before I invest in any "improved" projector, I would also like to know when a shorter focus lens would be available for such Optoma projectors. I find the digital Royale I have now so easy to use that I can arrive late and still start on time! No one, so far has complained about the image quality or the Sequences. More often than not, when I see several Sequences shown one after another, it is the Sequences that need improving rather than the projectors!

Peter

[Ken Cox]

"I think this statement is a little eliteist and aimed at the technology chasers. The majority of camera clubs where I live can only just afford a basic projector, the RPS of all people should cater for all (dare I say it) classes of photographers.

Yachtsman1."

Eric

the truth always hurts -- the camera clubs should be raising the dues to buy the proper equipment !

or for nights when they are having a competition rent one

ken

[trailertrash]

My club uses a 1400x1050 projector and we're told to keep our images to that size. We just spent £4000 on a laptop and projector combo which is a hell of a lot of money for us. our subs are £30 [$45] annually which I think is pretty good. I still dont understand the aspect ratio thing yet but hope these discussions will enlighten me.

Andrew.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Ken

Don't take this the wrong way, we have a saying up int' Dales " he's not on this earth, he's on fullers earth".

I was referring to the RPS being a UK organisation. Our club has around 20 members, paying £15 for the season Sept to March, it costs about £10 per club night to rent the room, if it's very cold an extra couple of pounds in the electricity meter. The average age of the members is mid to late sixties, living on a pension.

Come on Ken!!!!! Things may be different in Canada? In the UK the credit crunch has hit hard.

Eric

[Ken Cox]

Eric

remember the old saying "if you gonna dance ya gotta pay the band"

it is doom and gloom in the colonies as well

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/

RETIRED AUG 31 1993 WAS 58 1/2 . got a raise from comppany last year -first since i retired

ken

[Maureen]

The average age of the members is mid to late sixties, living on a pension.

Snap Eric !

Our projector costs less than a thousand pounds while many Camera Clubs have been spending over three thousand for a 1400px x 1050px model (no names mentioned to protect the innocent)

I am a volunteer organiser for the RPS - ie unpaid and on an OAP pension

all donations gratefully received

so am not the RPS itself. I speak as an individual member of two Camera Clubs and two small AV Groups.

Small Groups in UK can and have applied for grants for equipment.

Waves were very successful last year and so purchased their projector, laptop & other kit.

elite - the richest, most powerful, best educated or most highly trained group in a society:

the country's educated elite a member of the elite

Oh how I wish I was elitist Eric!

Guess I'll have to train hard and join the SAS ... not the RPS

but maybe too long in the tooth now .. and most of those are falling out at my age

calibrating your equipment is crucial and not expensive.

Can't afford the equipment , then just use a chart to start with.

have some posted on the South Wales DIG site - hope link below works

best one is actually the black & white calibration_1 chart

These projector / monitor calibration files can be downloaded here.

Most people here would echo my sentiments when they post on this Forum .....

I hope this helps.

Good luck with any grant applications.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

As Shakespeare said, "Methinks she doth protest too much"?

Ours cost £500 with a 75% grant that took two years to get, we've had it 12 months, what are we supposed to do with it? Sell it on Ebay & start applying again?

It doesn't grow on trees up here.

Yachtsman1