Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Projecting Digital?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 5:58:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The question
before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and more
affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
equipment would be needed?

Our club would be grateful for your advise.

Rob

More about : projecting digital

Anonymous
November 28, 2004 5:58:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Basic Wedge wrote:
>
> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The question
> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and more
> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
> equipment would be needed?
>
> Our club would be grateful for your advise.
>

A large television would be more visible in brighter light, a projector
really does require darkness or near darkness. "Large" however, is a
relative term. A really large (60" or more) TV is going to cost
substantially more than a projector, like double or more, but is, IMHO,
a better solution. Many have DVI inputs that can connect to the DVI
output on a desktop PC (DVI is uncommon on laptops). Most have S-Video
inputs that can connect to the S-Video outputs on many laptops.

My ultimate choice would be a really large rear projection TV, I prefer
the Sony LCD panel models, along with an inexpensive desktop PC with a
multi-card reader and CD/DVD player drive.

Second (and more realistic) choice would be the same computer with a
projector.

Lisa
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 5:58:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I'll email what the Camera Club of Ottawa found as our solution. I need to
dig up our specs.

Darrell Larose
Webmaster
Camera Club of Ottawa

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:y9bqd.372266$%k.287526@pd7tw2no...
> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The
question
> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and
more
> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
> equipment would be needed?
>
> Our club would be grateful for your advise.
>
> Rob
>
>
Related resources
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 5:58:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:y9bqd.372266$%k.287526@pd7tw2no...
> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The
question
> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and
more
> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
> equipment would be needed?
>
> Our club would be grateful for your advise.
>
> Rob

No question...
Projector wins without a doubt. TVs just aren't going to give you clear
pictures.

***Also...when you're using a laptop with a viewer program like ACDSee,
you'll have tremendous control over how you display the images...including
quickly and precisely zooming in on a particular section of an image, for
example. This is incredibly useful when viewing/discussing images in a
group. You simply cannot do this with a TV. Also, using a laptop will
allow you to group/organize images any way you like...from multiple
photographers. You can makes collections... selections... eliminations...
copies... distributions--on the spot. Again, NONE of this can be done with
ay other solution. You could, for example, keep the best from each
photographer each week... or perhaps compile pictures for
judging/scoring/categorizing, etc.

Projector for sure.
Make sure it is at least XGA (1024x768), and that it is at least 1200
lumens.
You should be able to get a 2000 lumen model in the neighborhood of $2500.
Less if dimmer...

Remember, too, that as your groups get more into digital, you/they may, at
some point, wish to discuss/display various tools to use for digital file
handling, etc.

Stay away from Epson, as they tend to have very distictly visible pixel
separation in their LCDs. DLP projectors use an entirely different
technology to project their image, opting for an array of tiny mirrors
rather than the more standard LCD models. The up side of the DLP versions
is that you don't see the tiny separations between pixels as you do on LCDs.
The down-side is that DLP are **slightly** less precise, but you would be
hard-pressed to notice it at all.

I've have had great results with my NEC LT156 (about 3 years old now). 3
years ago it cost about $3500 for 1200 lumens. At 1200 Lumens you need a
very dim or dark room for best results. Even if you get a brighter 2000 or
2500 lumen model you will likely still want to dim or darken the room.

-That's all... :) 

Mark
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 5:58:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I should add that if you have a room with white, non-glossy walls...you
won't even need a screen, and will benefit also with the ability to project
a larger image. We watch HUGE movies on the white wall of my living room
here at my house for a TRULY amazing home theater experience using the DVD
player on my laptop, and the NEC projector. Very cool, and reason enough
for you to "volunteer" to be the official keeper of the projector. :) 


"MarkĀ²" <mjmorgan(lowest even number here)@cox..net> wrote in message
news:QTdqd.364469$a85.24523@fed1read04...
>
> "Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
> news:y9bqd.372266$%k.287526@pd7tw2no...
> > A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The
> question
> > before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings.
Attention
> > has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and
a
> > lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and
> more
> > affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What
do
> > all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type
of
> > equipment would be needed?
> >
> > Our club would be grateful for your advise.
> >
> > Rob
>
> No question...
> Projector wins without a doubt. TVs just aren't going to give you clear
> pictures.
>
> ***Also...when you're using a laptop with a viewer program like ACDSee,
> you'll have tremendous control over how you display the images...including
> quickly and precisely zooming in on a particular section of an image, for
> example. This is incredibly useful when viewing/discussing images in a
> group. You simply cannot do this with a TV. Also, using a laptop will
> allow you to group/organize images any way you like...from multiple
> photographers. You can makes collections... selections... eliminations...
> copies... distributions--on the spot. Again, NONE of this can be done
with
> ay other solution. You could, for example, keep the best from each
> photographer each week... or perhaps compile pictures for
> judging/scoring/categorizing, etc.
>
> Projector for sure.
> Make sure it is at least XGA (1024x768), and that it is at least 1200
> lumens.
> You should be able to get a 2000 lumen model in the neighborhood of $2500.
> Less if dimmer...
>
> Remember, too, that as your groups get more into digital, you/they may, at
> some point, wish to discuss/display various tools to use for digital file
> handling, etc.
>
> Stay away from Epson, as they tend to have very distictly visible pixel
> separation in their LCDs. DLP projectors use an entirely different
> technology to project their image, opting for an array of tiny mirrors
> rather than the more standard LCD models. The up side of the DLP versions
> is that you don't see the tiny separations between pixels as you do on
LCDs.
> The down-side is that DLP are **slightly** less precise, but you would be
> hard-pressed to notice it at all.
>
> I've have had great results with my NEC LT156 (about 3 years old now). 3
> years ago it cost about $3500 for 1200 lumens. At 1200 Lumens you need a
> very dim or dark room for best results. Even if you get a brighter 2000
or
> 2500 lumen model you will likely still want to dim or darken the room.
>
> -That's all... :) 
>
> Mark
>
>
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:04:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

A third way would be to get a large monitor....much depends on how big you
want to view them. Projectors that I have seen are not that high-res....and
TVs are large and heavy. Both need a darkened room.

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:y9bqd.372266$%k.287526@pd7tw2no...
> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The
question
> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and
more
> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
> equipment would be needed?
>
> Our club would be grateful for your advise.
>
> Rob
>
>
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:15:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:y9bqd.372266$%k.287526@pd7tw2no...
>A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm.

Geeze - that makes a change from all the camera clubs around here - they are
still stuck in the 80's - 1880's in some cases and resist 'modern' things
like Digital Cameras (if their outfits are anything to go by they're more
into 'with it' things like Collarless Beatles jackets, 'kipper' ties and
Flares) - the very thought of using something as advanced as auto focus or
auto exposure would have them seething in their cocoa mugs.

...flash bulbs anyone?

:) 
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:47:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Basic Wedge wrote:
> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The question
> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and more
> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
> equipment would be needed?
>

Projector is far more economical and is also more portable. I often do
travelogues and an XGA projector (1024x768) works fine. I paid abt
$1000 for mine at COSTCO in Oct 2003.

In choosing a screen there are some options. Make sure you do not use
one with a vertical texture -- as used with some slide projectors.
Produces an interference patterent with the projectors vertical pixel
lines. DA-Lite has a good range of projctors, from portable to fixed
and in a large range of sizes.

Phil
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:56:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Basic Wedge wrote:

> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The question
> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and more
> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
> equipment would be needed?
>
> Our club would be grateful for your advise.

As noted in another thread, the resolution of TV is limited - 525
vertical lines maximum for NTSC, which effectively limits your image
resolution to under 800x600.

New LCD projectors are nice - good ones will display 1280x1024 or better
cleanly, and size of the display is limited only by the size of the
projection surface (screen, etc.), and the brightness of the room (the
further away the projector is from the screen, the larger the image, but
the dimmer it will be). A projector will also likely cost far less than
an equivalent large-format TV (they're starting well under $1500 these
days).

Specs you want to look for are maximum resolution, maximum brightness,
and maximum contrast ratio. If possible, deal with a store that will
either demo different models for you, or better yet, let you test your
top two or three in your regular venue (make sure they're bright enough,
etc.)
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 6:57:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lisa Horton wrote:

> A large television would be more visible in brighter light, a projector
> really does require darkness or near darkness. "Large" however, is a
> relative term. A really large (60" or more) TV is going to cost
> substantially more than a projector, like double or more, but is, IMHO,
> a better solution. Many have DVI inputs that can connect to the DVI
> output on a desktop PC (DVI is uncommon on laptops). Most have S-Video
> inputs that can connect to the S-Video outputs on many laptops.
>
> My ultimate choice would be a really large rear projection TV, I prefer
> the Sony LCD panel models, along with an inexpensive desktop PC with a
> multi-card reader and CD/DVD player drive.

This is really silly. Do you expect them to haul a huge rear projection
TV around to their meetings? Or might a shoebox sized projector, which
can project an image measured in FEET, not inches, be a little smarter?

With the laptop, you could also get into Photoshop demo sessions and
showing instructional videos.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 7:13:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Phil Wheeler wrote:
>
>
> Basic Wedge wrote:
>
>> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The
>> question before us is how to best display digital images at our
>> meetings. Attention has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a
>> digital projector and a lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it
>> wouldn't be better, and more affordable, to simply display images on a
>> large screen television. What do all of you think? Is one method more
>> suitable than the other? What type of equipment would be needed?
>>
>
> Projector is far more economical and is also more portable. I often do
> travelogues and an XGA projector (1024x768) works fine. I paid abt
> $1000 for mine at COSTCO in Oct 2003.
>
> In choosing a screen there are some options. Make sure you do not use
> one with a vertical texture -- as used with some slide projectors.
> Produces an interference patterent with the projectors vertical pixel
> lines. DA-Lite has a good range of projctors

should have typed projector screens.

, from portable to fixed
> and in a large range of sizes.
>
> Phil
>
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 7:22:10 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I know of clubs like that too... but I think our group is reasonably
progressive.

Additional information: Our club has fewer than forty members. We'd love to
see it grow, but I don't imagine we would ever be showing images to a huge
crowd of people. We meet in a school library. The school may already have a
monitor... we mean to inquire. If they don't, we may be able to enter into
some kind of cost sharing arrangement with them - schools are, after all,
keen to expand into digital multimedia, as well.

Thanks for the responses so far, and keep them coming.

Rob

----------------------------

"Harvey" wrote ...
>
> Geeze - that makes a change from all the camera clubs around here - they
> are still stuck in the 80's - 1880's in some cases and resist 'modern'
> things like Digital Cameras (if their outfits are anything to go by
> they're more into 'with it' things like Collarless Beatles jackets,
> 'kipper' ties and Flares) - the very thought of using something as
> advanced as auto focus or auto exposure would have them seething in their
> cocoa mugs.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 7:32:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Basic Wedge wrote:

> I know of clubs like that too... but I think our group is reasonably
> progressive.
>
> Additional information: Our club has fewer than forty members. We'd love to
> see it grow, but I don't imagine we would ever be showing images to a huge
> crowd of people. We meet in a school library. The school may already have a
> monitor... we mean to inquire.

Most facilities like that are limited. If you do use a TV, you will
need to get the images there (e.g., with a DVD player). Some will show
jpegs direct -- but some of those are slowwww -- and VCDs work better.

They may have a screen which you can use with your projector.

> If they don't, we may be able to enter into
> some kind of cost sharing arrangement with them - schools are, after all,
> keen to expand into digital multimedia, as well.
>

Lots of times the administrative issues of cost sharing with a public
entity are a deal breaker.

I used the projector in our local library for a couple of years. Then
came the night I had a show to do and someone had left the projector in
an odd state. Blought my own a few weeks later.

Phil
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 10:05:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Matt Ion wrote:

> New LCD projectors are nice - good ones will display 1280x1024 or better
> cleanly...

Matt,
I haven't seen one with this high a resolution. Most seem
to be 1024x768 or even 600x800. Most will accept a 1280x1024
pixel display signal, but they interpolate it down to 1024x768.
Could you please name a model (or some models) that has
true 1280x768 resolution?

This brings up another point on shopping for a projector:
be sure you know what the *native* resolution is.

Even if projectors have gotten up to 1280x768 resolution, that
is a long way from 6 to 8+ mpixel digital camera images.
While I agree that the images *look* great compared to
slides when projected, that is mainly an illusion because
the digital projector image is so much brighter than slide
projector images. It's like turning up the volume
on one audio speaker compared to another: the louder one
usually sounds better (given reasonable quality).

So. does anyone know of some really high resolution projectors,
in the several megapixel range?

Roger
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 1:30:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:05:23 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username
to rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>Matt Ion wrote:
>
>> New LCD projectors are nice - good ones will display 1280x1024 or better
>> cleanly...
>
>Matt,
>I haven't seen one with this high a resolution. Most seem
>to be 1024x768 or even 600x800. Most will accept a 1280x1024
>pixel display signal, but they interpolate it down to 1024x768.
>Could you please name a model (or some models) that has
>true 1280x768 resolution?
>
>This brings up another point on shopping for a projector:
>be sure you know what the *native* resolution is.
>
>Even if projectors have gotten up to 1280x768 resolution, that
>is a long way from 6 to 8+ mpixel digital camera images.
>While I agree that the images *look* great compared to
>slides when projected, that is mainly an illusion because
>the digital projector image is so much brighter than slide
>projector images. It's like turning up the volume
>on one audio speaker compared to another: the louder one
>usually sounds better (given reasonable quality).
>
>So. does anyone know of some really high resolution projectors,
>in the several megapixel range?
>
>Roger

Here's one that will do 1400x1050; it's only $5K.
I think that current technology isn't up to projecting 6+ MP yet.
The highest standard resolution seems to be WXGA @ 1366 x 768 pixels.
Good luck!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 1:46:29 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>
> Lisa Horton wrote:
>
> > A large television would be more visible in brighter light, a projector
> > really does require darkness or near darkness. "Large" however, is a
> > relative term. A really large (60" or more) TV is going to cost
> > substantially more than a projector, like double or more, but is, IMHO,
> > a better solution. Many have DVI inputs that can connect to the DVI
> > output on a desktop PC (DVI is uncommon on laptops). Most have S-Video
> > inputs that can connect to the S-Video outputs on many laptops.
> >
> > My ultimate choice would be a really large rear projection TV, I prefer
> > the Sony LCD panel models, along with an inexpensive desktop PC with a
> > multi-card reader and CD/DVD player drive.
>
> This is really silly. Do you expect them to haul a huge rear projection
> TV around to their meetings? Or might a shoebox sized projector, which
> can project an image measured in FEET, not inches, be a little smarter?
>
> With the laptop, you could also get into Photoshop demo sessions and
> showing instructional videos.
>

Silly is making unwarranted assumptions, then assuming they're true.

The OP didn't say anything about the setup having to be mobile, so I
didn't make the assumption that it had to be mobile. Had he said he
wanted the setup to be portable, obviously that would make a large TV
not the best choice.

Projectors need a darker room, especially when displaying a very large
image, a big TV is visible in plain room light. Also, a typical new HD
projection TV has better resolution than a non HD projector. Maybe you
like less resolution, but I don't.


Good point about the laptop though, after all, it's not like they could
do Photoshop and videos on a desktop.

Or were you trying to be humorous?

Lisa
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 4:02:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>>So. does anyone know of some really high resolution projectors,
>>in the several megapixel range?

Bear in mind that you don't have more than 1.5 megapixels on your computer
screen either.

What would the input to a multi-megapixel projector come from? It wouldn't
be the normal output of a video card, because those match computer screens.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 5:29:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) wrote:

> Matt,
> I haven't seen one with this high a resolution. Most seem
> to be 1024x768 or even 600x800. Most will accept a 1280x1024
> pixel display signal, but they interpolate it down to 1024x768.
> Could you please name a model (or some models) that has
> true 1280x768 resolution?
>
> This brings up another point on shopping for a projector:
> be sure you know what the *native* resolution is.
>
> Even if projectors have gotten up to 1280x768 resolution, that
> is a long way from 6 to 8+ mpixel digital camera images.
> While I agree that the images *look* great compared to
> slides when projected, that is mainly an illusion because
> the digital projector image is so much brighter than slide
> projector images. It's like turning up the volume
> on one audio speaker compared to another: the louder one
> usually sounds better (given reasonable quality).
>
> So. does anyone know of some really high resolution projectors,
> in the several megapixel range?

The highest I know of is made for HDTV, and is the "full" 1920 x 1080
resolution. They are from a few manufacturers, one is the JVC D-ILA
technology. I think they are very expensive, like 20,000 dollars. I
would have to research that. The best "affordable" one in the recent
past has been the JVC SX-21 D-ILA, which had somewhat less resolution,
something like 1440 x 1080. But it is the best I've seen for displaying
HDTV. Probably good for slides and digital stills.

Gary Eickmeier
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 5:49:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 03:47:25 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng5@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>Basic Wedge wrote:
>> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The question
>> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
>> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
>> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and more
>> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
>> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
>> equipment would be needed?
>>
>
>Projector is far more economical and is also more portable. I often do
>travelogues and an XGA projector (1024x768) works fine.

That would be enough for "informational" photos, but is it really
adequate for a photographic club? My slide projector can manage
something approaching 3000x2000 (when my slides are up to it) and I
would have thought that would be needed to do justice to top-quality
photos. Whether such a beast actually exists I'm not sure!

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 7:10:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 07:05:23 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username@qwest.net> wrote:

>Matt Ion wrote:
>
>> New LCD projectors are nice - good ones will display 1280x1024 or better
>> cleanly...

>I haven't seen one with this high a resolution. Most seem
>to be 1024x768 or even 600x800. Most will accept a 1280x1024
>pixel display signal, but they interpolate it down to 1024x768.
>Could you please name a model (or some models) that has
>true 1280x768 resolution?

http://www.multimediaprojectors.co.uk/projectors_sxga.h... gives some
SXGA and UXGA projectors, which *should* mean they are true 1280x1024
and 1600x1200 respectively (especially given the quoted prices!). But I
don't have first-hand experience.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 8:14:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thanks Stephen. Interesting link to some nice looking equipment. I'm sure
any of those projectors would, handily, meet our needs, but, given our
club's rather small membership, none of those are really affordable.

Another photo club in our city recently purchased a projection system. For a
projector and lap-top computer, I believe they paid around three thousand
(CDN) dollars. That's probably the most our club would be able to budget for
this project.

BTW, some posters have mentioned the need for a good projection screen.
Fortunately, the facility we meet in has one already.

Rob

------------------------------

"Stephen Poley" wrote ...
> http://www.multimediaprojectors.co.uk/projectors_sxga.h... gives some
> SXGA and UXGA projectors, which *should* mean they are true 1280x1024
> and 1600x1200 respectively (especially given the quoted prices!). But I
> don't have first-hand experience.
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:12:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 10:46:29 -0800, Lisa Horton
<Lisa091704@lisahorton.net> wrote:

>
>
>Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>>
>> Lisa Horton wrote:
>>
>> > A large television would be more visible in brighter light, a projector
>> > really does require darkness or near darkness. "Large" however, is a
>> > relative term. A really large (60" or more) TV is going to cost
>> > substantially more than a projector, like double or more, but is, IMHO,
>> > a better solution. Many have DVI inputs that can connect to the DVI
>> > output on a desktop PC (DVI is uncommon on laptops). Most have S-Video
>> > inputs that can connect to the S-Video outputs on many laptops.
>> >
>> > My ultimate choice would be a really large rear projection TV, I prefer
>> > the Sony LCD panel models, along with an inexpensive desktop PC with a
>> > multi-card reader and CD/DVD player drive.
>>
>> This is really silly. Do you expect them to haul a huge rear projection
>> TV around to their meetings? Or might a shoebox sized projector, which
>> can project an image measured in FEET, not inches, be a little smarter?
>>
>> With the laptop, you could also get into Photoshop demo sessions and
>> showing instructional videos.
>>
>
>Silly is making unwarranted assumptions, then assuming they're true.
>
>The OP didn't say anything about the setup having to be mobile, so I
>didn't make the assumption that it had to be mobile. Had he said he
>wanted the setup to be portable, obviously that would make a large TV
>not the best choice.
>
>Projectors need a darker room, especially when displaying a very large
>image, a big TV is visible in plain room light. Also, a typical new HD
>projection TV has better resolution than a non HD projector. Maybe you
>like less resolution, but I don't.
>
>
>Good point about the laptop though, after all, it's not like they could
>do Photoshop and videos on a desktop.
>
>Or were you trying to be humorous?
>
>Lisa

Going to shops that sell high-end TVs, I note that the larger HDTV
ubits aren't anywhere as large as you can get with a like-priced
projector, and the projector will have hight resolution to boot. And
be more *much* more portable.
Yes, the projector will need a darker room, but I've seldom seen that
to be a problem.
The pros for the projector (larger image, higher resolution) seem to
outweigh the cons (need for a darker room).
Especially when the intended use is for a camera club that places
resolution high on it's want list.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
Anonymous
November 28, 2004 9:46:56 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill wrote:

> Here's one that will do 1400x1050; it's only $5K.
> I think that current technology isn't up to projecting 6+ MP yet.

I doubt it'll go much beyond that for a while without getting into more
esoteric units - computer projection is a rather niche market compared
to TV projection, and the latter doesn't require anything more than 1080
vertical at best, for highest HDTV spec.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:26:07 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:46:56 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com>
wrote:

>Big Bill wrote:
>
>> Here's one that will do 1400x1050; it's only $5K.
>> I think that current technology isn't up to projecting 6+ MP yet.
>
>I doubt it'll go much beyond that for a while without getting into more
>esoteric units - computer projection is a rather niche market compared
>to TV projection, and the latter doesn't require anything more than 1080
> vertical at best, for highest HDTV spec.

The Sony VPH G90U has 2500x2000 resolution but is a little dear for
most.

I'm wondering just how much resolution (minimum) is required for demo
presentations in a small room with no more than forty viewers, usually
less.

Dave
East Englewood
-----------------------------------
The proof is in the print.
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 2:26:08 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

dave6134@verizon.net wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 18:46:56 GMT, Matt Ion <soundy@moltenimage.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Big Bill wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Here's one that will do 1400x1050; it's only $5K.
>>>I think that current technology isn't up to projecting 6+ MP yet.
>>
>>I doubt it'll go much beyond that for a while without getting into more
>>esoteric units - computer projection is a rather niche market compared
>>to TV projection, and the latter doesn't require anything more than 1080
>> vertical at best, for highest HDTV spec.
>
>
> The Sony VPH G90U has 2500x2000 resolution but is a little dear for
> most.
>
> I'm wondering just how much resolution (minimum) is required for demo
> presentations in a small room with no more than forty viewers, usually
> less.

It is good to see the devices coming out, as that means
sometime in the future the price will probably come down.
After all, CD burners were once on the order of
$35,000. I'll wait for the under $2K prices before
upgrading from 1024x768.

Regarding minimum resolution, go for at least 1024x768.
A stunning photo can still be great even at that resolution.
But for real details, a large print is a must (unless
you do large format contact prints ;-).

Roger
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 3:29:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Lisa Horton wrote:

> Silly is making unwarranted assumptions, then assuming they're true.
>
> The OP didn't say anything about the setup having to be mobile, so I
> didn't make the assumption that it had to be mobile. Had he said he
> wanted the setup to be portable, obviously that would make a large TV
> not the best choice.
>
> Projectors need a darker room, especially when displaying a very large
> image, a big TV is visible in plain room light. Also, a typical new HD
> projection TV has better resolution than a non HD projector. Maybe you
> like less resolution, but I don't.

An HD projection TV has greater resolution than a non HD projector. Why
did you say that? Why would they be limited to a non HD projector?
>
>
> Good point about the laptop though, after all, it's not like they could
> do Photoshop and videos on a desktop.

Huh? On a desktop? Where did that come from?
>
> Or were you trying to be humorous?

If I was, you trumped me.

Gary Eickmeier
November 29, 2004 9:29:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The
question
> before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
> has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
> lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and
more
> affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
> all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
> equipment would be needed?
>
> Our club would be grateful for your advise.
>

just put digital projector into a search engine and you will find a dozen or
more places that sell a wide variety of them from home theatre to stadium
size. Many of the sites have tutorials about how, what and where.

keep in mind, consumer level projectors are a step or two behind monitors in
res levels. IE: the average desk top and many laptops have better than XGA,
1278x1024 or better, 1600x1200 etc. while consumer projectors are 1024x768
or smaller.

You will need 1,000 lumens or more, though your group probably has a dark
enough room and could get away with a dimmer/cheaper unit, so buy resolution
over brightness.

If your group are photo geeks and want to see not only each blade of grass,
each leave and chunk of bark but texture of those blades and leaves?

One guy I know burns his digital files to slide film, you can buy a polaroid
"pallet" for as little as a hundred bucks on ebay, designed to use their own
polaroid slide film but heck anybody can figure out how to load other film.
Some of them have res of 4,000 x 2,500 something like that, much better than
most monitors and much better than projectors.

another solution would be to run several monitors, have members bring their
19 inch LCD's and see if you can rig a machine to display a half dozen buy
inserting a couple extra video cards into extra slots.

also, most projector bulbs cost about $300 for about 1,000 hours allegedly.
November 29, 2004 6:42:01 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"zeitgeist" <blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:Mtzqd.683676$8_6.16815@attbi_s04:

> TV's have awful resolution levels, one reason you needed to buy a
> computer
>

With 40 people in the room it might not be a big deal how much resolution
the screen has, unless they have very good eyesight.

Bob
Anonymous
November 29, 2004 6:42:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Mon, 29 Nov 2004 15:42:01 GMT, bob <Jwx1.nothing@bellsouth.net>
wrote:

>"zeitgeist" <blkhatwhtdog@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:Mtzqd.683676$8_6.16815@attbi_s04:
>
>> TV's have awful resolution levels, one reason you needed to buy a
>> computer
>>
>
>With 40 people in the room it might not be a big deal how much resolution
>the screen has, unless they have very good eyesight.
>
>Bob

In that case, use film and pass around prints! Much better resolution,
and everyone gets a close up view, and the people in front aren't in
the way!

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"
November 30, 2004 12:38:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Big Bill <bill@pipping.com> wrote in
news:gc1nq0do5p909pabscjijd7snvocn87et3@4ax.com:

> In that case, use film and pass around prints! Much better resolution,
> and everyone gets a close up view, and the people in front aren't in
> the way!
>

Film isn't required for prints.

The advantage of using prints is obviously the photographer has total
control over what is shown, but with any transmitted light system, color
and contrast will be dependent on the devices used.

Bob
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 3:33:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Thank you for all the responses thus far.

Other camera club members may have found themselves in similar straights.
Perhaps this discussion has been helpful to them, as well.

FWIW, our little club could probably be divided into three equal sub-sets:
some shoot film and display their work in print form (colour or B&W), some
shoot slide film and display their work via the club's projectors, and some
shoot digital.

It's this latter group of digital photographers who don't yet have a proper
means of displaying their work. Some make prints; some post their work to
the internet; others, because they are just exploring concepts or
experimenting with images, don't. They want to show their work, and get
feedback from others, but they aren't ready commit their work to a print or
CD. For them, it would be ideal to invest in a projector, and, from the
responses I've gotten, that is the direction we should likely go.

Another reason for wanting a projector is that we often invite guest
speakers to the club. More and more, those speakers are requesting a digital
projector be provided. We would hate to be frozen out from a valuable source
of knowledge, just because we haven't kept current with technology.

Thanks again for the great info.

Rob
Anonymous
November 30, 2004 3:33:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I use a Dell 4100MP projector as my home theater. 2200 lumens, HDTV,
1024x768 native (1280x1024 interpolated).

Works flawlessly for my image displays too.

Roughly $1800. Lesser models (of many brands) can be had for $1000 or so.

Perfect solution.

Tom
"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:D dPqd.383120$%k.323662@pd7tw2no...
> Thank you for all the responses thus far.
>
> Other camera club members may have found themselves in similar straights.
> Perhaps this discussion has been helpful to them, as well.
>
> FWIW, our little club could probably be divided into three equal sub-sets:
> some shoot film and display their work in print form (colour or B&W), some
> shoot slide film and display their work via the club's projectors, and
> some shoot digital.
>
> It's this latter group of digital photographers who don't yet have a
> proper means of displaying their work. Some make prints; some post their
> work to the internet; others, because they are just exploring concepts or
> experimenting with images, don't. They want to show their work, and get
> feedback from others, but they aren't ready commit their work to a print
> or CD. For them, it would be ideal to invest in a projector, and, from the
> responses I've gotten, that is the direction we should likely go.
>
> Another reason for wanting a projector is that we often invite guest
> speakers to the club. More and more, those speakers are requesting a
> digital projector be provided. We would hate to be frozen out from a
> valuable source of knowledge, just because we haven't kept current with
> technology.
>
> Thanks again for the great info.
>
> Rob
>
November 30, 2004 3:33:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca> wrote in
news:D dPqd.383120$%k.323662@pd7tw2no:

> Some make prints; some post their work to
> the internet; others, because they are just exploring concepts or
> experimenting with images, don't. They want to show their work, and
> get feedback from others, but they aren't ready commit their work to a
> print or CD. For them, it would be ideal to invest in a projector,
> and, from the responses I've gotten, that is the direction we should
> likely go.

Based on this last comment, I think you should reconsider: An 8x10 print
from Wal-Mart (Costco, Kmart, etc.) costs under $3.00. At that price you
can make a ton of prints before you get close to a projector.

You don't even need to commit to burning a CD; they can print from memory
cards too.

Bob

--
Delete the inverse SPAM to reply
November 30, 2004 10:55:29 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:58:38 GMT, "Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca>
wrote:

>A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The question
>before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
>has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
>lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and more
>affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
>all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
>equipment would be needed?
>
>Our club would be grateful for your advise.
>
>Rob

Proxima makes some fantastic projectors that we use at work. They are
small, high resolution, and very bright. The color sometimes needs
tweaking but that's a function of the laptops we run them from, the
projector has fairly good gamut.

http://www.askproxima.com/products/projectors/M2/index....

Don't go the television route. The resolution is too low and you will
be dissatisfied with it for something like a photography club.


Drifter
"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:50:49 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:02:28 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
<look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address&gt; wrote:

>>>So. does anyone know of some really high resolution projectors,
>>>in the several megapixel range?
>
>Bear in mind that you don't have more than 1.5 megapixels on your computer
>screen either.

Well, some people do. Screens with a width of 2048 pixels are certainly
available, and I dimly recall someone announcing a 3000-pixel width
screen, though I'm not sure if it's on the market yet.

--
Stephen Poley
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 11:50:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> writes:

>Well, some people do. Screens with a width of 2048 pixels are certainly
>available, and I dimly recall someone announcing a 3000-pixel width
>screen, though I'm not sure if it's on the market yet.

I can remember seeing a demonstrator LCD screen build by IBM that was, I
believe, double HDTV resolution. That's 3840 x 2160 pixels. It was
driven by a 4-head Matrox card through 4 digital monitor cables. The
screen area was divided into 4 equal-sized regions arranged side by
side, each one driven by one output of the graphics card.

Dave
Anonymous
December 1, 2004 6:57:27 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stephen Poley <sbpoleySpicedHamTrap@xs4all.nl> writes:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 13:02:28 -0500, "Michael A. Covington"
> <look@www.covingtoninnovations.com.for.address&gt; wrote:
>
> >>>So. does anyone know of some really high resolution projectors,
> >>>in the several megapixel range?
> >
> >Bear in mind that you don't have more than 1.5 megapixels on your computer
> >screen either.
>
> Well, some people do. Screens with a width of 2048 pixels are certainly
> available, and I dimly recall someone announcing a 3000-pixel width
> screen, though I'm not sure if it's on the market yet.

The apple monster is 2560 x 1600 which has exceeded the bandwidth
available over standard DVI.

B>
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 3:16:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I don't know if it'll help in your case but both clubs I belong to meet in
places where they have access to company projectors... One meets in a national
wildlife refuge center that has a small auditorium with a projector, and the
other in a company room with one... It saves the club having to buy a digital
projector...

Interesting that your club is actually TRYING to actively move into digital.
Both these clubs have had a lot of turmoil and resistance from some factions of
film shooters.

In interclub competition it appears to be even worse, with some members
demanding that if digital is to be considered at all it has to be TOTALLY
UNTOUCHED... No manipulation at all, no spotting, sharpening, etc... Pretty
much an effort to make sure the digital images can't compete against the
slides...

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 07:55:29 -0500, Drifter <zespectre@askme.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 02:58:38 GMT, "Basic Wedge" <basic-wedge@shaw.ca>
>wrote:
>
>>A camera club I belong to wants to move into the digital realm. The question
>>before us is how to best display digital images at our meetings. Attention
>>has, thus far, focused on the idea of purchasing a digital projector and a
>>lap-top computer to control it. I wonder if it wouldn't be better, and more
>>affordable, to simply display images on a large screen television. What do
>>all of you think? Is one method more suitable than the other? What type of
>>equipment would be needed?
>>
>>Our club would be grateful for your advise.
>>
>>Rob
>
>Proxima makes some fantastic projectors that we use at work. They are
>small, high resolution, and very bright. The color sometimes needs
>tweaking but that's a function of the laptops we run them from, the
>projector has fairly good gamut.
>
>http://www.askproxima.com/products/projectors/M2/index....
>
>Don't go the television route. The resolution is too low and you will
>be dissatisfied with it for something like a photography club.
>
>
>Drifter
>"I've been here, I've been there..."
Anonymous
December 4, 2004 5:26:53 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In message <euk2r0p1csijndsf9uvg9oog7rvg4hsl97@4ax.com>,
dperez@juno_nospam.com wrote:

>In interclub competition it appears to be even worse, with some members
>demanding that if digital is to be considered at all it has to be TOTALLY
>UNTOUCHED... No manipulation at all, no spotting, sharpening, etc...

How are they viewed? If they are going to a 1024*768 projector, they
are altered in a sharpening sense.
--

<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
!