Subj : Re: Power Point
To   : Jay Emrie
From : Jeff Guerdat
Date : Sat Sep 17 2005 10:28 am

On 09-16-05, JAY EMRIE said to JEFF GUERDAT:

JE>Jeff, we fully realize most of the above. However, digital projectors,
JE>like most any other device are not ALL the same. Some will project a
JE>better image than others regardless - they all have lenses do they not?
JE>Not all lenses are equal. As far as affording - just what dollar value
JE>are you intimating?

Heh!  I never explored that end of the spectrum.  Since they start at $2k and
go up quickly, I could easily imaging $10k.  An old racing axim - speed costs
money.  How fast do you want to go?

JE>PicturesToExe cannot - will not - MAKE a better image nor will any other
JE>program including Irfanview when manipulation is not to be done after
JE>the image has been submitted. PicturesToExe provides better and easier
JE>image sorting and rearrangement than any other like program we have
JE>looked at. That is the reason for selecting it - so far.

Cool.  I was concerned that you somehow thought that the output would somehow
look better.  I have no problem at all with intelligent choices based on solid
facts like you're doing.

JE>No, the digital imaging is to be a separate category as opposed to
JE>prints, slides, etc. The limitation of the device? That is what we are
JE>trying to determine for each possibly considered projector. What is the
JE>limitations of particular digital projectors, therefore which ones are
JE>best? They can't all be the same, can they?

I'm sure there's quite a difference in quality of various components in each
device.  At least in slide projectors you had something of a choice in lenses
- dunno if that's available for projectors.

JE>Have you ever gone to a workshop presentation by a "master"
JE>photographer when he uses a digital projector for showing his work and
JE>giving instructions aimed at teaching one to do better photography? They
JE>try to select the best digital projector available for that purpose.
JE>That is what we are aiming for.

No, I haven't, and I think that would be enlightening (pun intended).
However, even there I suspect that the emphasis is on technique and not
equipment (yes, I know that the projector isn't a normal part of the
photographic process).  There may be less of an emphasis on what projector is
used as long as it allows demonstration of depth of field and various other
subtle tricks.  After all, if you can't project full resolution, it's a bit of
a crap shoot as to what artifacts show up on the screen.

I'd love to know what you end up with.


___
*Durango b211 * DurangoMail for Windows NT/9x

--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: COMM Port OS/2 juge.com 204.89.247.1 (281) 980-9671 (1:106/2000)

.