You leave my hairy butt out of this ;-) Butt seriously now, what Caveman did was to compare a slideshow with a presentation (Powerpoint?). It would be insane to project any photo with a CCD projector if the image quality of the projection was a concern. However if any graphical elements were to be mixed with the photos then it would be insane to pursue the old fashioned, all film path. I've produced graphics and captions for those (even superimposed captions into slides), and the time and cost (both labour and material) were ridiculous. For the purpose of a lecture, refusal to advance to digital workflow is sheer Ludditism. For the audiences' requirements, ultimate quality is not a concern. If it was then an old fashioned slideshow would be in order, but forget graphics if the budget is tight.
Caveman, as a joke, compared apples to oranges. Now you are arguing apples while I argue oranges. The troll worked, and we got sucked into its vortex. regards, Anthony Farr ----- Original Message ----- From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, 9 June 2003 10:02 AM Subject: Re: Digital vs. film cave test > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Anthony Farr > > > Keep saying it all you like, but if the needed use is projection, then a > print is as useless as mammaries on a nun. > For a test to be valid, it has to take into account the end use. Any > test that ignores this fact is no longer a test, but a pissing contest. > Sometimes, tests just are not fair. > When I was looking at cars the last time, my intended purpose was to > have a vehicle that would get me out to my father in laws farm in any > weather condition. > My test bed was a farmers field not to far out of town, and a winch to > pull the failures out of the muck. > I discovered that an Isuzu Trooper was much better than a Honda Civic > for my intended use. > Was the test biased towards the sport utility? > Sure, but to not test for the conditions I anticipated would have been > hairy butt stupid. > > William Robb > > > >
