> -----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, and only the eyeball > results considered. I have no idea what point you're trying to make. He didn't say he used the same lens for both projections, so I fail to see how that could be a common factor. I also fail see how it's a relevant factor when you're projecting a .7 meg image on the wall. You could project it through a coke bottle and not see much degradation. Basically he took an 11 meg image file, used an unknown method to reduce the file size to 6% of the original, threw it up on the wall and bhahaha'd at digital. 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. He likes to project, so he should avoid them. However, he went to some effort to use files from dslrs that are way overkill for the projector's intended uses, implying that the capture method had something to do with his poor results. The implication is wrong. tv
