I think what you see depends on your distance to the screen. Digital
projectors are mostly for business or academic use and resolution is
not very important in those settings. I belong to a very large
astronomy club and it meets monthly in a large lecture hall on a
college campus. Probably seats 600 or 700 people.(http://
www.ocastronomers.org/) Slides are projected before the meeting
starts followed by digital presentations. The only real differences
half way back are in the quality of the photographer.
For more intimate settings you are right. A slide show would be
cheaper and show more.
However I gave up on projected slide shows years ago. People just
hate them.(Not only mine. :-) ) I love them, but I have been to some
that are like a movie, "Revenge of the Photo Nerd" in which the
social compact almost dissolves and some would as soon kill the
photographer before they leave as not. They would rather go through a
passed around stack of fuzzy 4x6 prints looking for a picture of a
kitten, little Heather, or Aunt Tilly at their own speed.
Most people have no intrinsic interest in images except as a spur
to conversation. I have found that people seem to be pleased with the
pictures going through a little "slide show" on my Powerbook pushing
the spacebar to go to the next at their own rate or set to a high
change rate. That is equivalent to a stack of nice 8x12 inch prints
but a little more detail than they would have and much more convivial
than a slide show allowing individuals who are interested to look at
the images and others to continue their conversations with an
occasional look. But maybe I am fooling myself about that.
I have come to think that any kind of projection as entertainment is
suspect. In certain settings I expect to be lectured at, but I would
not set up a lectern and do that in my home. In essence a slide show
is an audio visual lecture.
Just my two cents.
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On Oct 16, 2005, at 8:11 AM, Simon Worby wrote:
>
> A while back I commented that there was no way adequately of
> projecting
> digital images, and that even the best projectors "downgraded" digital
> cameras from their native 5/8/whatever MP to less than 1MP.
>
> My comments that that was unacceptable was poo-poo'd on the basis that
> you wouldn't notice "at a distance". I disagreed at the time, and I
> disagree now. It may not matter much with a moving image (such as
> television) that the resolution is so low, but in my opinion it
> certainly does matter with still images. I have slides (film
> slides) in
> which I can see amazing detail when projected to 6' x 4', and text
> I can
> read that I cannot read when the slide is scanned in at 4,800 dpi.
>
> AP has done a review of some digital projectors. In short they agree
> with me. (If anyone really wants the full article, I'll scan it in.)
>
> So I reassert my point. If you want to project your images and do them
> any sort of justice in the process, then digital is simply, at this
> point in time, useless.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simon
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|