OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote


There are so many errors of fact on that page that it's hard to know
where to start.


Dunno, I never read it - scanned it only.

So why refer to it?

Firstly 4K pictures are 4096 pixels wide, 4096p would be 4096
pixels *high*. IMAX is a film format



*beep* - irrelevant

Not irrelevant to the point that that web page, which you seemed to think
significant, was full of inaccuracies.


- 70mm film run sideways so that each
frame is 15 perfs long. Two 2K digital projectors would come nowhere near
equalling the definition of that!

I'm currently in the process of buying a 2K projector, not for me you
understand but for a cinema. Which is just as well as the £35k + VAT
price tag is not something I'd want to pay out of my own pocket. :-)
( 4K projectors are, of course, a hell of a lot more expensive. But only
needed for really big screens).


Rubbish. I believe even 60s James Bond movies are being digitally
remastered at 4K these days.


*beep* - irrelevant :-)
The D-Cinema specification allows for both 2K and 4K films, and 2K and 4K
projectors. 2K projectors are intended for screens up to about 10m wide, 4K
projectors for those bigger than that. A 2K cinema projector can show 4K
films down-converted perfectly well, just as a 4K projector can show 2K
films up-converted. Of course this also means that 4K projectors need more
light output. They use lamps from 4 up to 7kW, whereas 2K machines
generally have 2 or 3kW lamps.

So, unlike you, I do know what I am talking about.


What, because you are buying an expensive 2K PJ?

I've got two here already but 'domestically priced' (resolution doesn't go
up with the price tag), so I'm sorry to say I disagree

They are domestic projectors, and have as much in common with a D-Cinema
projector as a cheap cassette deck does with a pro reel-to-reel tape
machine.

- looks to me like
you've been Googling like a mad thing!

Google doesn't enter into it! My information comes directly from industry
sources.

David.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:46:10 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

why not show us the rest of the gear, including the
room and speaker placement (which probably makes much more difference
to the sound than whether you amplify using valves or transistors.)


You shouldn't be so lazy, Lozzer - the clip you require was already the

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzaWC...eature=channel


Enjoy...

Ignore the grey haze - it ain't dust or anything, it's a fault with the
camera. Kodak are looking into it....

That shows everything except the room. Are you lucky with dimensions,
amount of soft furnishings etc. or did you need extensive treatment to
allow your speakers to be heard accurately?

re the video - isn't it funny how someone so meticulous about one
medium can be so sloppy in another! I'm no audiophile (or cinemaphile
- is that a word?) but I'd never dream of releasing a video made
without a tripod, or with uncontrolled zooming :-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote in message



What, because you are buying an expensive 2K PJ?

Because its a good tool for the purpose?



WTF has that got to do with anything....???

The obvious meaning of that statement Keith is that you don't believe in
using good tools for a given purpose. I can live with that - its not a
disingenuous thing for you to say.



Sorry, Arny - I'm not doing 'your words, my mouth' this trip. Consider for a
while if you would prefer an open channel between us or if you would like me
to totally disregard your posts?

The original point is to do with David Looser '2K' arguments based on buying
(presumably having researched) a commercial cinema PK. My point is that the
pixel count is the same, irrespective if the PJ is made for
domestic/office/school use or full-on commercial cinema and I have outlined
my personal experience of the former.




I've got two here already but 'domestically priced'
(resolution doesn't go up with the price tag), so I'm
sorry to say I disagree - looks to me like you've been
Googling like a mad thing!

I could write quite a bit about the difference between
home/boardroom projectors and large venue projectors.

Based on what personal experience of either one - of what
use would be what you wrote, if you had none?

What if I had experience with any number of home/boardroom projectors and
large venue projectors? I do.


Why do I just know that a) you are exaggerating and b) you are talking
clunky old CRT projectors...??

Am I not right on both counts?

;-)




But someone who is into 2K wide
projectors could probably do it even better.

You mean with personal experience? Of Course!

As you have so kind as to detail below Keith you have zero experience with
large venue projectors.



Are you in a locked loop of stating the obvious? See the words no
experience/no access somewhere recently and try to twist it into a
falsehood.

Be warned. You are already in danger of being the first in a nice, clean new
and, as yet, empty ****ter! ;-)

Know that I'm back here because I have been told my input was missed and
that others (other than the 'Attack Pack') find my doings interesting.

Apparently??




My own experience is with only the following 'Home
Theatre' PJs which I have personally bought:

2 x 480p Panasonic AE100
2 x 480p BenQ W100
1 x 480p Infocus IN72
1 x 576 Hewlett Packard EPsummat or other
2 x 720p Optoma HD700
2 x 1080p Optoma HD200 ('2K wide' as you call it)
1 x 1080p Optoma HD800 ('2K wide' as you call it)

True, not a large venue projector in the bunch. Most are sub-$1,000
products. Some would call them "throw-aways". There's a word that
well-describes people who can't settle on a product for long - dilettante.



You are going out of shape in your efforts to be unpleasant. If this had
been a separate post you would be already disposed of....

Floating voters please note where this sort of thing originates. (Has done
for a decade, AFAIK....)



Googled busking snipped....

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"David Looser" wrote in message
...
"Keith G" wrote


There are so many errors of fact on that page that it's hard to know
where to start.


Dunno, I never read it - scanned it only.

So why refer to it?

Firstly 4K pictures are 4096 pixels wide, 4096p would be 4096
pixels *high*. IMAX is a film format



*beep* - irrelevant

Not irrelevant to the point that that web page, which you seemed to think
significant, was full of inaccuracies.


- 70mm film run sideways so that each
frame is 15 perfs long. Two 2K digital projectors would come nowhere
near equalling the definition of that!

I'm currently in the process of buying a 2K projector, not for me you
understand but for a cinema. Which is just as well as the £35k + VAT
price tag is not something I'd want to pay out of my own pocket. :-) (
4K projectors are, of course, a hell of a lot more expensive. But only
needed for really big screens).


Rubbish. I believe even 60s James Bond movies are being digitally
remastered at 4K these days.


*beep* - irrelevant :-)


What? You think there's a rash of 60's Bond movies going to hit the circuits
to recover the not inconsiderable costs of a 4K remaster? Some of the 4K
Bonds have been available for years and, AFAIK, only been
bought/rented/viewed in the domestic envirinment - preumably as 2K versions



The D-Cinema specification allows for both 2K and 4K films, and 2K and 4K
projectors. 2K projectors are intended for screens up to about 10m wide,
4K projectors for those bigger than that. A 2K cinema projector can show
4K films down-converted perfectly well, just as a 4K projector can show 2K
films up-converted. Of course this also means that 4K projectors need
more light output. They use lamps from 4 up to 7kW, whereas 2K machines
generally have 2 or 3kW lamps.


Well, it's a long way from my You Tube requirements but very interesting,
nevertheless.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:46:10 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

why not show us the rest of the gear, including the
room and speaker placement (which probably makes much more difference
to the sound than whether you amplify using valves or transistors.)


You shouldn't be so lazy, Lozzer - the clip you require was already the

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzaWC...eature=channel


Enjoy...

Ignore the grey haze - it ain't dust or anything, it's a fault with the
camera. Kodak are looking into it....

That shows everything except the room. Are you lucky with dimensions,
amount of soft furnishings etc. or did you need extensive treatment to
allow your speakers to be heard accurately?



As I've said here before, it sounds perfectly fine to me - I'm very often
not even in that room when I'm listening to records.




re the video - isn't it funny how someone so meticulous about one
medium can be so sloppy in another! I'm no audiophile (or cinemaphile
- is that a word?) but I'd never dream of releasing a video made
without a tripod, or with uncontrolled zooming :-)


Mee neether but that clip was posted in haste for someone who had commented
on one of my other vids and was merely to show them the kit involved. See
the comments.

Anyway, WTF - did they charge you for viewing it or summat?

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

Keith G said...

My understanding is that it meant Sellotape - I don't recall seeing that
much Fablon in that programme

I was just confused, I didn't understand that they couldn't say
Sellotape so I thought they meant Fablon and just used sellotape
instead cos it was cheaper. Scarred me for life.

We couldn't actually make out much detail on our TV in those days, it
was an ancient 10th hand thing resurrected by my dad, whose repair
method consisted of trying any old valve that fitted into the base
until some sort of picture appeared.
--
Ken O'Meara
http://www.btinternet.com/~unsteadyken/

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Laurence Payne" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:46:10 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

why not show us the rest of the gear, including the
room and speaker placement (which probably makes much more difference
to the sound than whether you amplify using valves or transistors.)


You shouldn't be so lazy, Lozzer - the clip you require was already
the

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PzaWC...eature=channel


Enjoy...

Ignore the grey haze - it ain't dust or anything, it's a fault with the
camera. Kodak are looking into it....

That shows everything except the room. Are you lucky with dimensions,
amount of soft furnishings etc. or did you need extensive treatment to
allow your speakers to be heard accurately?


Here, ya nosey bugger - a pan of the room (which is my bedroom/Plex 2) and
which is nearly full of furniture avalable as an 8 Meg MOV:

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/My%20Room.mov

Or an 18 Meg WMV (??):

http://www.moirac.adsl24.co.uk/showntell/My%20Room.wmv



Note the horses on the window cill: I fine tune the acoustic to suit the
material and/or cart being used by adjusting each of them so that the right
frequencies are reflected from their hindquarters.

It's called the 'Horses Arse' fine acoustical tuning technique...













;-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"UnsteadyKen" wrote in message
m...
Keith G said...

My understanding is that it meant Sellotape - I don't recall seeing that
much Fablon in that programme

I was just confused, I didn't understand that they couldn't say
Sellotape so I thought they meant Fablon and just used sellotape
instead cos it was cheaper. Scarred me for life.


The only thing I remember is an elephant dumping and then ****ing all over
the studio floor and some wattock called Johnny Morris getting pulled right
through it all - looking like Benny Hill's famous milkman character 'Ernie!

Fakk'n hilarious!

I bet it's on You Tube!! :-)



We couldn't actually make out much detail on our TV in those days, it
was an ancient 10th hand thing resurrected by my dad, whose repair
method consisted of trying any old valve that fitted into the base
until some sort of picture appeared.



So? What was wrong with that?

I didn't see the transition when my dad's favourite firm slap on the top of
any 'audiovisual gadget' (telly and radio) changed from a valve-reseating
exercise to a finely gauged resetting/realigning of cracked solder tracks on
inch thick PCB boards when 'solid state' came in!

:-)

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

"Arny Krueger" wrote

In addition, projectors that are used to show
current feature films may have security and anti-piracy features.


No "may" about it - they DO have security and anti-piracy features. For that
reason *only* DCI compliant projectors can be used to show current feature
films.

David.

OK then, You Tube it is....???
 

On Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:49:19 +0100, "Keith G"
wrote:

That shows everything except the room. Are you lucky with dimensions,
amount of soft furnishings etc. or did you need extensive treatment to
allow your speakers to be heard accurately?



As I've said here before, it sounds perfectly fine to me - I'm very often
not even in that room when I'm listening to records.

And you enjoy the benefits of vinyl, valves and premium speakers
whether your ears can "see" the tweeters or not, even if you're not in
the same room? That sounds like the way I listen to MUSIC (for which
the tiny DAB radio/alarm clock by my bed will do very nicely), not the
way I listen to audio quality!

But really, apart from the care you obviously take in choosing
equipment, do you care about (and hear) the effects of the room? This
was a subject rarely discussed when I first read the Hi-Fi comics
(around 1969). Now (if you discount the "interconnects" scam) it's
almost the predominant topic.