I find it very sad that the very best that digital presentation can do is but a very small fraction of what our cameras can capture...scarcely approaching what a slide projector can present! Even 4K is equivalent to (roughly) digital cameras from 20 years ago. 8K can present 33MPixels, but still costs $3-4k (or more).
Here's one of my slide shows you can suffer through. If interested, pick 1080 HD high resolution and turn the volume up. You can watch on your TV, cellphone or computer.
Thanks Alan, I pass.
It's too bad you decided to pass before checking. Maybe you would have discovered something interesting if only proven my method is really worse. On the other hand, there may be certain features with my method such as being able to publicly show it that you might find interesting. Can I see your slide show so I can make a comparison of my own?
If I'm sitting 14 feet from my 4K 75" TV, I can't tell the difference between 1080 (2K) uprezed to 2160 or 2160 provided (4K). So scanning now at 3840x2160 (8MB) resolution is more than the eye can differentiate. The screen is brighter than reflected film movie screen. Frankly, it's been so long that I looked at a slide projection on a screen, I don't know which looks better from memory. Have you actually compared the two in a real-world comparison?
Note that digital movie projectors screens in theaters are at 1920x1080 although many are now at 3840x2160.
Alan,
The human eye is often said to resolve one half minute of arc...at 14' distance that means the eye can detect something as small as. 0.049" or 1.24mm.
A 75" monitor measures about 65" horizontal, so that means a single horizontal pixel is 0.43mm, so less than the eye resolves at that distance...just don't sit closer than 58" and you won't be able to detect individual pixels (which can be seen in the front rows of the movie theater!)
What you point out is valid outlook, but that in turn raises the question of why the obsession for more than 16MPixel, you could crop the photo to remove 75% of its pixels with zero apparent perceptible loss of detail compared to what our 4K monitor can present. Or put anoither way, when we send a 16MPixel file to display on our TV, we are sending 4X as much data as it can resolve, lengthening transmission time.
Aaand back to 35mm slide projectors, please. I'm sure there's a good forum for discussing TV's and YouTube elsewhere on the internet.
The analogy might explain why medium format transparency projection impresses more than 135 format transparency projection, onto the same screen! The emulsion might be identical for both film sizes, but the density of dye clouds as seen in medium format is about 2x in each direction when projected onto the same screen, and although the human eye visual acuity might not see 'more detail', it can appreciate higher density of information. Just a hypothesis.Alan Edward Klein said:Those calculations pretty much match my real-world experience. Thanks for spending the time to provide them. I can see the difference between a picture of 1920x1080 (2K) vs 3840x2160 (4K) displayed on the 75" TV screen when I sit about 5-6 feet from it or closer. So people sitting in the family room nearer the TV can notice the difference. OF course, I usually sit 14 feet back on my recliner, so the difference is not noticeable to me. One thing I have noticed. That pictures and movies taken with higher resolution still look sharper overall. Don't know why?
When we were doing slide shows by the photo club in Finland, we used Rollei slide projectors. They have excellent optics and uses straight trays which are easy to store. Overall more compact than the Kodak carousel types, but magazine capacity is smaller. Smaller magazines are a blessing, so we don't have to suffer through long boring presentations.
That's why I agree that discussions should be allowed to move around a little and many things are related or at least help in clarifying or validating topic points. IF the OP asks "How are Nikon F3's for 35mm?", don;t we want people to respond, "well, an F6 is better IMO?" rather that being prevented from saying that and only giving his opinion on the F3? After all, discussing alternatives raises issues about the topic that the OP could learn from.We are progressively losing availability of color emulsions, we are increasingly challenged in finding processing labs with good process controls that ensure consistency...and we don't have many gatherings of enthusiasts who appreciate the sharing via slide presentations. The audience of camera buying folks is less than the size it was 30 years ago, too. Last night I went to an Xmas party in which my wife and I presented photo books from a trip to Romania taken with family members, and showing appreciation for the book they commented 'we have no printed photos of this trip' (merely cellphone photos). All sad indicators to where photography has declined.
While not purely 'analog photography', a discussion of the merits of slide projection vs. digital projection is a valid discussion when slide projection has declined so far, as well. The benefit of the analog projection, comparing it to digital, helps to illustrate why folks should be interested in slides. I do not think it is as beneficial to always compartmentalize the discussions for that reason. Just sayin' Spending my first 50+ years with analog, and then spending just under 20 years with digital, I am not a purist in either direction...I see benefit of lessons learned being carried forward.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?