Prev: Don't forget to send your 46.8 degree images for Sunday, the 17th.
Next: Thumb drives
From: Allen on 18 Jan 2010 22:10
Chris Malcolm wrote:
> GMAN <Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org> wrote:
>> In article <C77A02C5.3C59F%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 1/18/10 11:42 AM, in article
>>> 1415n.110098$5n7.9705(a)en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com, "GMAN"
>>> <Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <4b547953$0$1674$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, rfischer(a)sonic.net
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> <ianp5852(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Does anyone use and/or recommend any particular projector?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I have only recently migrated from 35mm to dSLR and, having taken 35mm
>>>>>> slides for most of my life am now missing the pleasure of viewing my
>>>>>> latest images on the large screen. ( I am enjoying the new found
>>>>>> flexibility of digital imagery , though!)
>>>>>> There seems to be little information available on the use of digital
>>>>>> projectors specifically for photographic purposes. It seems that from
>>>>>> a cost point of view the latest 1080 HD projectors, I guess being a
>>>>>> very competitive market, are the winners. However, I am concerned that
>>>>>> this effectively means projecting an image of maximum dimension 1080 -
>>>>>> since I take quite a lot of portrait format images. I have seen some
>>>>>> of my images projected by an Optoma (HD80 I believe) projector but
>>>>>> only working in XGA mode and , I have to say, the quality of image
>>>>>> left a lot to be desired. Resolution was poor, colour was poor and
>>>>>> adjacent colours bled into one another. It was very bright though. I
>>>>>> am used to seeing , typically, Velvia slides projected through an old
>>>>>> Leica Pradovit, and do not expect to achieve that sort of quality but
>>>>>> do not want to spend upwards of GBP1000 and be very disappointed in
>>>>>> the results.
>>>>>> I only wish to project in my living room and I can make that
>>>>>> reasonably dark so am not looking for particularly large screen or
>>>>>> throw distance . I am far more interested in quality of image.
>>>>> You can have digitial images printed to slides. The quality (at
>>>>> large sizes) will be better and cheaper than spending a couple of
>>>>> thousand pounds for a video projector.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's a tradeoff between cost and convenience.
>>>>>
>>>> Why the hell would he want to go backwards?
>>> Typical FishHead Rot illogic.
>>>
>> You got me all wrong here. I love slides, but to say that he should take all
>> of his newer digital photographs and convert them into slides just so he can
>> show them on a slide projector that is most likely 30 years old, is stupid.
>
>> He should invest in a somewhat decent projector.
>
> A digital projector as good as a good 30 year old slide projector will
> cost more than 100 times as much.
>
And for more fun, wait until the light source has to be replaced.
Allen
From: GMAN on 19 Jan 2010 01:05
In article <RMydnXILyIE4v8jWnZ2dnUVZ_ixi4p2d(a)giganews.com>, not(a)here.com wrote:
>Chris Malcolm wrote:
>> GMAN <Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org> wrote:
>>> In article <C77A02C5.3C59F%ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com>, George Kerby
> <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 1/18/10 11:42 AM, in article
>>>> 1415n.110098$5n7.9705(a)en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com, "GMAN"
>>>> <Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <4b547953$0$1674$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, rfischer(a)sonic.net
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> <ianp5852(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> Does anyone use and/or recommend any particular projector?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have only recently migrated from 35mm to dSLR and, having taken 35mm
>>>>>>> slides for most of my life am now missing the pleasure of viewing my
>>>>>>> latest images on the large screen. ( I am enjoying the new found
>>>>>>> flexibility of digital imagery , though!)
>>>>>>> There seems to be little information available on the use of digital
>>>>>>> projectors specifically for photographic purposes. It seems that from
>>>>>>> a cost point of view the latest 1080 HD projectors, I guess being a
>>>>>>> very competitive market, are the winners. However, I am concerned that
>>>>>>> this effectively means projecting an image of maximum dimension 1080 -
>>>>>>> since I take quite a lot of portrait format images. I have seen some
>>>>>>> of my images projected by an Optoma (HD80 I believe) projector but
>>>>>>> only working in XGA mode and , I have to say, the quality of image
>>>>>>> left a lot to be desired. Resolution was poor, colour was poor and
>>>>>>> adjacent colours bled into one another. It was very bright though. I
>>>>>>> am used to seeing , typically, Velvia slides projected through an old
>>>>>>> Leica Pradovit, and do not expect to achieve that sort of quality but
>>>>>>> do not want to spend upwards of GBP1000 and be very disappointed in
>>>>>>> the results.
>>>>>>> I only wish to project in my living room and I can make that
>>>>>>> reasonably dark so am not looking for particularly large screen or
>>>>>>> throw distance . I am far more interested in quality of image.
>>>>>> You can have digitial images printed to slides. The quality (at
>>>>>> large sizes) will be better and cheaper than spending a couple of
>>>>>> thousand pounds for a video projector.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a tradeoff between cost and convenience.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Why the hell would he want to go backwards?
>>>> Typical FishHead Rot illogic.
>>>>
>>> You got me all wrong here. I love slides, but to say that he should take all
>
>>> of his newer digital photographs and convert them into slides just so he can
>
>>> show them on a slide projector that is most likely 30 years old, is stupid.
>>
>>> He should invest in a somewhat decent projector.
>>
>> A digital projector as good as a good 30 year old slide projector will
>> cost more than 100 times as much.
>>
>And for more fun, wait until the light source has to be replaced.
>Allen

Good luck finding a bulb for many of the slide projectors out there.



From: Ray Fischer on 19 Jan 2010 01:42
GMAN <Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org> wrote:
>You got me all wrong here. I love slides, but to say that he should take all
>of his newer digital photographs and convert them into slides just so he can
>show them on a slide projector that is most likely 30 years old, is stupid.

Explain to us all why an 8MP slide is worse than a 2MP digital
projector. Explain to us all why somebody whould spend $1500 for a
digital projector instead of spending a buck to turn a digital photo
into a slide.

>He should invest in a somewhat decent projector.

Why? One fourth the resolution at thousands of dollars?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

From: Peter Huebner on 19 Jan 2010 05:06
In article <vjr8l5p6ca28sa3j5ef2kruaidvqb9jkf6(a)4ax.com>, ianp5852
@googlemail.com says...
> I only wish to project in my living room and I can make that
> reasonably dark so am not looking for particularly large screen or
> throw distance . I am far more interested in quality of image.

A 30" monitor might be more suited if you want quality of image.
Most all the projectors that I have seen stats for have a dreadfully low
resolution. Ok for tv and moving pictures, but. Highest resolution one
I've seen is WUXGA, 1920x1200 and that one is over 13 grand here ...
WXGA 1280x800 is more common (and affordable), but still more expensive
than a 30" monitor with twice the resolution. Many projectors don't even
have that much, 1024x768 and such like are still the bulk of the crop.

They're sure to improve dramatically, or some other high-res technology
may come along. I wouldn't touch them at the moment. Useful for throwing
a sales pitch off a notebook.

-P.
From: J. Clarke on 19 Jan 2010 08:14
Peter Huebner wrote:
> In article <vjr8l5p6ca28sa3j5ef2kruaidvqb9jkf6(a)4ax.com>, ianp5852
> @googlemail.com says...
>> I only wish to project in my living room and I can make that
>> reasonably dark so am not looking for particularly large screen or
>> throw distance . I am far more interested in quality of image.
>
> A 30" monitor might be more suited if you want quality of image.
> Most all the projectors that I have seen stats for have a dreadfully
> low resolution. Ok for tv and moving pictures, but. Highest
> resolution one I've seen is WUXGA, 1920x1200 and that one is over 13
> grand here ... WXGA 1280x800 is more common (and affordable), but
> still more expensive than a 30" monitor with twice the resolution.
> Many projectors don't even have that much, 1024x768 and such like are
> still the bulk of the crop.
>
> They're sure to improve dramatically, or some other high-res
> technology may come along. I wouldn't touch them at the moment.
> Useful for throwing a sales pitch off a notebook.

Dunno where you are but in the US 1080P HDTV projection monitors are
available for under $1000. Cheapest 30" monitor I can find that exceeds
that resolution is $1200.





First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: Don't forget to send your 46.8 degree images for Sunday, the 17th.
Next: Thumb drives