Slide Projector for 35 mm

[Alan Edward Klein]

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).

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.

 

[wiltw]

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.

The video reminds me about 40 years ago...I had a 40 gal. saltwater aquarium and the fish in it were maybe 1-2" long and each one was $30 or more. I had an opportunity to go to Tahiti on the way back from a business trip...the airfare had no added cost to stay in Tahiti for a while. I snorkled in the waters of Moorea, and the fish all around me we like the ones in my aquarium, but five to ten times bigger (or more)! I can readily understand why our oldest grandson is starting his degree in marine biology.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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?

 

[Chan Tran]

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?

I am sorry. I have very ltttle interest in sharing my images to others and I don't have interest in other people's images either. I never visit the gallery section or post in the gallery section. I don't make slide show. I project my slides but not a show.

 

[wiltw]

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.

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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? So I'll shoot movies at 4K. It also provides more cropping room than movies shot at 2K. I use Adobe Premiere Elements to create the video slide show which allows me to zoom in on the video or even stills for that matter. when editing and creating the video. With stills, I'll use Lightroom to edit first. I'll create jpegs for the video with a vertical height of 2160 (4K). There's no point using more resolution unless you have an 8K TV. I dump the shows on to memory cards that are then plugged into the USB jack of the smart TV ready to show. I used to use DVD's. But most people stopped using disks. Also, they're too slow and memory limited for 4K movies. I do have Blu-ray player. But most people don't have those either.

Of course, with stills, I also have cropping room if I'm shooting at 20mb since I only need 8mb to convert over to a 4K slide show. Another factor is I make videos of my slide shows which provide a 4K 3840x2160 output. I could display the full picture that would be downrezed to 4K by the TV. But video slide shows allow me to add music, title, credits, annotations, fades, transitions, etc. It also allows me to download to YouTube to show others.

YouTube allows 4K as in this example I did. In settings, you can select 4K, 2K or even smaller resolution from YouTube if you want to do you own comparison on your TV or computer. It's stills only in video format.


If you want to see a movie that has 1080 movie clips and stills mixed in, check this one. 1080 is the max setting though.

 

[koraks]

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.

 

[wiltw]

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.

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.

 

[Chan Tran]

I surely love a Kodak Ektapro 9020 if I can afford it.

 

[wiltw]

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?

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.

 

[blee1996]

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.

 

[wiltw]

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.

OTOH, Carousel/Ekatagrapic projectors can have continuously running projections, whereas the Rollei/Kindermann projectors have to be attended, or they 'run out' of slides. I love the quality of projection from my Kindermann and I also have a Be;ll & Howell 'slide cube' 135 staclk projector, but neither can do continuous presentations (alhough changing slide trays is not slow) , and the OP is looking for 'automated'. 'Different strokes for different folks'

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

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.

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.

 

[guangong]

While I have a Leitz Prodovit 250 projector which holds trays for fifty slides, for my own occasional viewing of 35mm I use a Leitz manual projector. For 66 slides I use a manual Leitz projector. I also have a manual projector for 67 slides made by Leitz but with different brand name. The 66 and 67 slides are glass mounted. For a too brief period, Kodak made Kodachrome in 120. Kodachrome plus a Rollie or Hassy were a fantastic combination.

 

[Cy_prus]

I want to buy a slide projector. I found kodak carousel s-av. It looks like it has a 250mm lens. What screen size is it and what is its minimum focusing distance?

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

This chart should help:

https://www.kodak.com/global/plugins/acrobat/en/digital/av/slideProjectors/lensChart.pdf

 

[Alan Edward Klein]

How big is your screen? How far will the projector be from it? Then you can calculate which lens is the best for your situation. 250mm sounds like a big distance from lens to projector.

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

The norm for slide projector lenses is ~80-100mm, with zoom models extending to ~150mm. Kodak lenses came in "C" versions with a curved field - meant to compensate for the curve in cardboard mounted slides. If you slides are glass mounted get the non-C version.