Anthony Farr wrote:
Like I keep saying, if there is a fair way to compare digital to film then
it can only be by putting the best possible print of each side by side. Why
prints? Simple, because that's the one medium where both technologies can
show their best. Any other medium gives an
be the point of your exercise, not any retrospective
claim that the test was serious. You clearly introduced the test as
Digital vs. film cave test, but it was actually damned good slide
projector vs. so-so digital projector.
regards,
Anthony Farr
Anthony Farr wrote:
My point about using prints as the means of comparison is that it requires
neither capture medium to be converted to the other as part of the process,
and very fine prints can be made from either by their own native workflow
methods.
And on what magic digital media do you
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 wrote:
For the purpose
of a lecture, refusal to advance to digital workflow is sheer Ludditism.
Call me a Luddite, but I found that the safest way is to prepare the
slides on a computer and print them on letter sized tranparencies for
overhead projectors. When something goes wrong
On June 5, 2003 11:04 pm, Rob Studdert wrote:
On 5 Jun 2003 at 20:51, Nick Zentena wrote:
So it was stacked in favour of the digital. What's new?
Read again.
It was nicely highlighting the inadequacies of mainstream digital
projection options.
No it was testing a digital
On June 5, 2003 09:19 pm, Mark Roberts wrote:
It was stacked *against* digital.
How can any test that gives one side that much of a monetary advantage be
stacked against the side with more money?
Nick
On Thursday, June 5, 2003, at 02:13 PM, Caveman wrote:
The digital projector is one of the finest available, it costs over
$4000 canuck...
That's cheap for a digital projector.
--jc
-Original Message-
From: Keith Whaley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not pertinent.
It's pertinent for me.
When the test being performed has the resolution of the
projector lens,
good or bad, as a common factor, so long as you don't
change the lens
between tests, it can be ignored,
tom wrote:
If his point was that digital projection is inferior, fine, I don't
think anyone would argue that an XGA resolution projector is going to
beat any slide projector.
You got it right. The cave thing was that before starting any kind of X
vs. Y comparison, you have to define the purpose
-Original Message-
From: Caveman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You got it right. The cave thing was that before starting
any kind of X
vs. Y comparison, you have to define the purpose for which
you want to
use them, and please make it a valid one. The kind of
testing we see now
on
I wanted them to be the exact output of the respective cameras, without
further processing or compression artifacts. I somehow hoped that I will
see some differences, in the color rendition and local contrast dept.,
but no luck, the projector was a very good equalizer. No notable
differences
What do you need, JCO to wander into this to know you're in the Twilight
Zone? You've got folks who have an agenda to prove something, and don't
care how they do it. So stop confusing things with facts.
BR
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... he went to some effort to use files from dslrs that are
On 03.6.5 5:33 PM, Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So stop confusing things with facts.
Here you go again.
Stop confusing things with something you know nothing about.
What is the point of you suddenly coming into this without anything useful
to contribute?
Be specific as others do,
I believe the point was humor.
-Original Message-
From: KT Takeshita [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 6:13 PM
To: Pentax Discuss
Subject: Re: Digital vs. film cave test
On 03.6.5 5:33 PM, Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So stop confusing things
KT Takeshita wrote:
On 03.6.5 5:33 PM, Bruce Rubenstein [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[...]
What is the point of you suddenly coming into this without anything useful
to contribute?
He's just trolling, as usual. Brucey, you're soo predictable Why
don't you make some effort to surprise me ?
Nick Zentena [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On June 5, 2003 07:53 pm, Bruce Rubenstein wrote:
Of course you didn't. That's why you didn't understand that the
Valentin's original post was a spoof test. Projecting images with a
high resolution projector, then a low resolution projector and then
What's the resolution of the Canon projector? Can it utilise the full
resolution of the digital files, or are they resized, perhaps downwards, to
fit the projectors LCD? Also, if LCD monitors can't be calibrated like a
CRT can be, it may be that the LCDs in these projectors are equally 'wild'.
D'OH
Should've read through the thread first. Apologies for being serious, i
think I need to lighten up.
regards,
Anthony Farr
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
What's the resolution of ..
On Sat, 7 Jun 2003 02:09:15 +1000
Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What's the resolution of the Canon projector? Can it utilise the
full resolution of the digital files, or are they resized, perhaps
downwards, to fit the projectors LCD? Also, if LCD monitors can't
be calibrated like a
KT Takeshita wrote:
On reflective models, there are CCD like
element or millions of tiny mirrors etc to create images which will then be
projected (reflected) by a strong light source.
IIRC Texas Instruments was into that. You're speaking 6 figures prices.
1. Caveman said he used a Canon LV-7350
On 5 Jun 2003 at 20:51, Nick Zentena wrote:
So it was stacked in favour of the digital. What's new?
Read again.
It was nicely highlighting the inadequacies of mainstream digital projection
options.
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
22 matches
Mail list logo
