Video Projector vs Slide Projector

[literiter]

I put this in the general discussion because I couldn't find it's proper place. Move if you like.

Have the images projected from video projectors kept pace with the quality from digital cameras? As of three years ago I've not seen a video projector that matches the image quality of a slide projector, but in truth I don't get out much.

I'd like to convert from slides to projecting from a computer. Any ideas out there?

 

[amateriat]

Frankly, no. And it only takes my grabbing my Ektagraphic projector and fair-to-middling Kodak zoom lens to show just how big a gap there is between it and all but the most scary-expensive digital projectors available...and the scary-expensive numbers fall short as well, just not quite as shockingly.

That said, sometimes a digital projector is the only useful option, especially if you're dealing with either (a) images from a digital camera (natch), or (b) scans from negatives. If you're wanting to occasionally show images in a group setting, the best thing to do is rent a projector rather than buy (together with a good screen). If you're keen on buying, you'll want to find a store where you can do some serious side-by-side comparison of several models in whatever price range suits you, and understand where the compromises will lay. And, there will be compromises, depending on how critical your eye is.

I might be getting a "broken" digital projector from my sister to mess around with. I think the DVD-ROM drive has an issue with it. While it doesn't hold a candle to my Ektagraphic in terms of image quality, it can obviously do a number of tricks my projector can't, and those can come in handy on occasion.


- Barrett

 

[literiter]

Thank you for the replies.

I thought as much for the most part, but someone could have said that this so and such VP is a little better than slide projectors and away I go. So to speak.

Thing change so much these days, it pays to keep up to date. Now I am...am I?

I have three pretty decent Elmo Omnigraphics, two super lenses a dissolve and all the goodies. I'll stay this way for now.

Regards ALL
Vincent

 

[dmr]

Frankly, no. And it only takes my grabbing my Ektagraphic projector and fair-to-middling Kodak zoom lens to show just how big a gap there is between it and all but the most scary-expensive digital projectors available...and the scary-expensive numbers fall short as well, just not quite as shockingly.

We have an Ektagraphic carousel projector in our AV closet and I think I'm the only one who has even turned it on in so many years.

Yes, comparing it to the video projector in the conference room, the Ektagraphic is much brighter and sharper.

I question, though, would the average naive viewer know or care about the difference? (Other than the fact that the PPT dissolves and the slide projector clicks?) 🙂 🙂

 

[amateriat]

Denise: Well, when I was still watching TV on a regular basis, decades ago, it always irritated me how many of my friends couldn't (and probably still can't) tell the difference between a show that was shot on film and one shot on videotape. "How can we call ourselves a visually literate generation when we can't even suss this out?" I'd ask. But, I'm weird that way. Now, you'd that with the crazy money people spend on big, high-def monsters for watching the latest blu-ray release, they'd be more hip. Not necessarily, from what I've observed.


- Barrett

 

[sevo]

Cinematic projectors are close, but still not quite there - even in the best cinemas I can still tell the difference between a HDV and 35mm film projection, and we're talking the price of a Beverley Hills villa there. Projectors that fit into the budget of even a huge still camera kit still stink, compared to a good slide...

 

[literiter]

I really like the bulb life of VPs. It is amazing, particualrly when you consider the bulb life of a typical ELH lamp. I like the reliability of VPs and the ability to use the Power Point program.

Ya gotta admit, that stuff is very very nice.

However I had the pleasure of attending a presentation by two people. (Grand Canyon pics) The first presentation was about 20 minutes with the VP and it was fine. The pictures could have captions, music, sound etc.

Then the slide show. Same stuff pretty well, done with Fujichromes. Two projectors and a dissolve. A projector lamp popped during the show. One slide tray insisted on jamming......but the images, absolutely unbelievable. Exquisite!

Yes, there are issues with slides:
-Longevity when projected a lot.
-Copies are not really very good
-My experience with slide projectors show they have a habit of really screwing up, often.

But I still love 'em.

 

[dmr]

Denise: Well, when I was still watching TV on a regular basis, decades ago, it always irritated me how many of my friends couldn't (and probably still can't) tell the difference between a show that was shot on film and one shot on videotape.

From a very early age, as long as I can remember TV, I could always tell what was on film and what was live. IE: Captain Kangaroo (yes, I admit to remembering it) was live and Mickey Mouse Club (the original) was film. The live TV had a "crisper" and "brighter" look to it.

Both of my parents claimed not to be able to tell the difference. I assumed I must have possessed some special power. 🙂

As I grew up I realized that much of what had the "live" look was actually video tape.

One thing I remember which was almost disconcerting was that in the 1960s, all sitcoms were on film, and then "All In The Family" came out on video tape! Something about it just didn't look right! I thought I was the only one in the whole world who noticed this! Others did not seem to notice or care.

"How can we call ourselves a visually literate generation when we can't even suss this out?" I'd ask. But, I'm weird that way. Now, you'd that with the crazy money people spend on big, high-def monsters for watching the latest blu-ray release, they'd be more hip. Not necessarily, from what I've observed.

Maybe I've lost that special power with age! In today's world of high-def and the like, I admit that most of the time when I'm watching a program, I'm really unaware of whether it's real high-def or just plain old video on the wide screen.

I do think that I still notice nuances in photos, both prints in real life and on the web. Although I admit that I can't tell just from the print whether an image began life as film or digital! I would HOPE that I would be able to discern if an image was made with real Kodachrome as opposed to being shot with a DSLR and being put through (/me throws up) one of those kodachrome filters in Photoshop, but I'm not sure if I could.

Oh well ...

 

[photogdave]

One thing I remember which was almost disconcerting was that in the 1960s, all sitcoms were on film, and then "All In The Family" came out on video tape! Something about it just didn't look right! I thought I was the only one in the whole world who noticed this! Others did not seem to notice or care.

What made it really disconcerting was how the opening credit footage was film but the rest of the show was tape!
Growing up, a lot of us Canadians thought that we had a different way of producing TV shows than the U.S. because all of our shows looked so low budget. King Of Kensington, The Littlest Hobo etc. Just turned out to be video vs. film! We thought video was crappy movie cameras!

 

[dmr]

What made it really disconcerting was how the opening credit footage was film but the rest of the show was tape!

The opening credit scene I remember was tape, Archie and Edith singing at the piano, with a brief (maybe 10 seconds) of aerial footage of Manhattan, segueing to Queens, the street, the house, and then back to the off-key vocalists. That song kind of hits you like it does when you walk into a karaoke bar sober! 🙂 🙂

But anyway ...

Growing up, a lot of us Canadians thought that we had a different way of producing TV shows than the U.S. because all of our shows looked so low budget. King Of Kensington, The Littlest Hobo etc. Just turned out to be video vs. film! We thought video was crappy movie cameras!

I think the perception is not because taped programs necessarily look low budget, but because low-budget programs are usually taped. Film costs more than tape, plus the effort to edit, process, etc. (I think of the short-lived "Divorce Court" here in the States, the WORST low-budget program I ever remember! It was taped, and probably erased shortly after it aired!)

Sitcoms, dramas, features, are still mostly filmed. Yes, filmed programs do exude a degree of professionalism and polish that's frequently lacking in taped programs. The original All In The Family was a classy production, but it really didn't look right on tape. 🙂