Prev: Don't forget to send your 46.8 degree images for Sunday, the 17th.
Next: Thumb drives
From: George Kerby on 18 Jan 2010 13:22



On 1/18/10 12:07 PM, in article 4b54a356$0$1615$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net,
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote:

> 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?
>
> Because slides in a slide projector are sharper than a digital
> projector and much, much cheaper. Are you one of those idiots who
> worships technology even when it's not appropriate?

Typical FishHead Rot response.

From: GMAN on 18 Jan 2010 13:30
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.
From: tony cooper on 18 Jan 2010 14:37
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:30:42 GMT, Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org
(GMAN) 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.

Or burn them on a DVD and show them on his large-screen television.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: GMAN on 18 Jan 2010 18:39
In article <22e9l594t31um61gii5p4cq47vg3t0sgoc(a)4ax.com>, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:30:42 GMT, Winniethepooh(a)100acrewoods.org
>(GMAN) 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.
>
>Or burn them on a DVD and show them on his large-screen television.

Yes, good advice
From: Chris Malcolm on 18 Jan 2010 21:09
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.

--
Chris Malcolm
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