Prev: Don't forget to send your 46.8 degree images for Sunday, the 17th.
Next: Thumb drives
From: John McWilliams on 19 Jan 2010 10:50
On 1/19/10 PDT 5:14 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
> 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.

Indeed, projectors of reasonable resolution have been under $1000 for a
few years.
As to a monitor of 32", one would go to an HD TV with HDMI inputs, so it
can be used with a computer if one wishes. But it's quite possible to
put images on a flash drive and run them on the TV without other
connections.

--
John McWilliams

From: ianp5852 on 20 Jan 2010 04:56
On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 23:06:20 +1300, Peter Huebner
<no.one(a)this.address> 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.
>
>-P.

Thank you to all of you for your comments which do not really surprise
me. I think I shall have to hold fire for the present and hope that
Peter is correct and some new technology does become affordable within
my lifetime! I may well try the 'digital to slide' process for some of
my better shots - shouldn't cost that much :)
Please reply to group - email address is not monitored
Ian
From: GMAN on 20 Jan 2010 15:49
In article <4b555464$0$1676$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, rfischer(a)sonic.net wrote:
>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.
>

Who the hell uses slides anymore?. I converted all 50 slide trays from way
back to the 1950's that my dad had using a Coolscan IV . The sure look a hell
of a lot better on my 60" HDTV than they ever did on my old screen and
Kodak Ektagraphic III slide projector.


Why would he want to take each and every one of his digital photo's , and go
backwards and pay $1 for each slide?



>>He should invest in a somewhat decent projector.
>
>Why? One fourth the resolution at thousands of dollars?
>

What legacy is he leaving for his kids if soon in the future, they cannot get
that bulb for that slide projector?


From: Ray Fischer on 22 Jan 2010 00:11
GMAN <Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org> wrote:
> rfischer(a)sonic.net wrote:
>>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.
>
>Who the hell uses slides anymore?.

Is that an explanation?

> I converted all 50 slide trays from way

Not interested.

>Why would he want to take each and every one of his digital photo's , and go
>backwards and pay $1 for each slide?

Did you read what I wrote? Or do you just like asking stupid questions?

--
Ray Fischer
rfischer(a)sonic.net

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