New Computer

[buckeyefarmer]

Jeez... you guys are old.

"I remember when we stored data on a Victrola!"

I counted bits with an abacus.

 

[JasperFrank]

When I got my first C64, and it had a 174K floppy, and 32K available RAM for Basic programs, which you could bit map, and use sprites, it blew away, everyone in the computer department. I think some of my profs were pissed off, cause they had IBM 1540s, that costed them thousands and thousands of dollars. And this little "toy" computer, which didn't then have a hard drive, had so much more built in potential at $1,200 dollars with the disk drive, that they wanted to play with it. I passed all my CS classes, just because I was showing them new things this could do that their PC could not do. The best part was I got a dialup port to the Campus main DEC 11/70 computer, using the C64 as a smart terminal. These ports where not being used by any one else. The Profs didn't even know about the dialup ports then. So.. I'd get an A in that class, just to show them how.

 

[/pine]

FWIW...Some of the latest "computers" are only about 1/3 the size of an average cigar box and half as thick...lots of ports...plug in a monitor and either bluetooth or USB peripherals etc...takes up way less space than a laptop etc connected to a decent monitor

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Some of the laptop docking stations are about the size of some of the new mini PCs

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I’m wondering if it’s worth going to a 4K pc and projector for large room presentations. Mostly PowerPoint and some video. We currently project with a standard projector to a 12 ft wide screen. Any experience?

 

[cqaigy2]

I counted bits with an abacus.

Abacus! We used our fingers, and sometime toes.

 

[/pine]

Abacus! We used our fingers, and sometime toes.

I knew some blond guy that couldn't count to 21 unless he was naked...!

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I knew some blond guy that couldn't count to 21 unless he was naked...!

And the girls counted to 22

 

[JasperFrank]

"I’m wondering if it’s worth going to a 4K pc and projector for large room presentations. Mostly PowerPoint and some video. We currently project with a standard projector to a 12 ft wide screen. Any experience?" NO it isn't worth it. And there is no reason to. Your projector doesn't do 4K anyway. So.....

 

[buckeyefarmer]

"I’m wondering if it’s worth going to a 4K pc and projector for large room presentations. Mostly PowerPoint and some video. We currently project with a standard projector to a 12 ft wide screen. Any experience?" NO it isn't worth it. And there is no reason to. Your projector doesn't do 4K anyway. So.....

The question is should I go to a 4K projector. I.e. does anyone have experience in going to 4K for projection?

 

[MossRoad]

 

[JasperFrank]

The answer is No. The human eye can not distinguish anything past 1080. We can't tell a difference on a higher resolution. We don't even have that many receptors in our eyes. So resolution has been solved. 4k is something that is only meaningful to a very few number of people in astrophysics and other advanced sciences. A 4k if sent off to a site like Youtube, becomes 1080 anyway in compression. And display devices right now, don't do 4k. They say they do ... but, then they don't. In an odd way we are editing a capture system, that we can't really use as a projection system... if that makes any sense.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

I would think it would make a huge difference. The higher the resolution, the higher the pixel count. People who have 4K TVs talk about how much sharper the pictures are.
As you spread the picture out on a 12 ft screen, I have to think you get a much better picture. I don’t have a 4K to know, so hope someone that has a 4K projector can chime in. The projectors sure cost more.

 

[rswyan]

Let me preface this by saying I don’t have a 4K projector or any experience with one.

We do however have a 4K UHD flatscreen display/tv (3840 × 2160 native resolution) - it’s a Vizio M55Q7-H1.

I would think it would make a huge difference.

It could.

To some degree, it’s probably going to be dependent on the distance the image that the projector projects is viewed FROM.

To that end, you might find the link below helpful:

Carlton Bale’s Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size

The higher the resolution, the higher the pixel count.

Correct (obvs)

People who have 4K TVs talk about how much sharper the pictures are.

That’s largely true … but again it can be dependent on a variety of factors:

1. The inherent resolution of the original source material itself.

Source material that was originally shot at 720p or 1080i will never look as sharp on a 4K display as the same subject matter that was originally shot at 4K res, assuming all else being equal.

2. How the set handles scaling up material that has an inherent resolution that is LESS than the native resolution of the tv set.

3. The general quality of the set itself. To some degree, the brightness, contrast ratio, and dynamic range of the set play a big factor in how good the image looks.

I can tell you that it’s pretty easy for me to discern the difference in picture quality between a local channel broadcasting in 720p or 1080i and a 4K UHD streamed movie.

Do the local stations broadcasting at a lower resolution look really good on our set ?

Generally, yes … although sometimes video footage will look “soft” (lacking sharpness) … but who knows what res that footage was shot at and with what quality of camera ?

The chyrons and graphics tend to look great regardless though.

As you spread the picture out on a 12 ft screen, I have to think you get a much better picture.

Yup - I would certainly think that would be the case.

Certainly makes sense from a logical standpoint.

One thing I would check into if I were you, is whether the screen you’d be projecting onto might need to be upgraded as well.

I don’t have a 4K to know, so hope someone that has a 4K projector can chime in. The projectors sure cost more.

Can’t really help you there … except to note that to some degree one gets what they are willing to pay for.

 

[kenmbz]

I was the first person in my college to hand in a paper printed at home on a computer.
those printers were awful slow and ripping the perfs off made a mess.

For projections-they have short throw projectors so you can put them right up against the wall on the floor. Or do you want ceiling mount?
Looking at a high cost vs. low cost projector seems to make more of a difference in picture quality.
Lots of image processing to make the image clear and to offset any skew. Also quicker pixel updates so less artifacts.
Source material resolution is also key in getting better output as noted above.

 

[WinterDeere]

The answer is No. The human eye can not distinguish anything past 1080. We can't tell a difference on a higher resolution. We don't even have that many receptors in our eyes.

Whoa... back up! Correct data, but wrong conclusion, because those receptors are coupled to some mighty good zoom lenses. One is not simply absorbing the entire screen worth of data into their eyes like a scannner, but rather we focus on where the motion or subject detail is on the screen. So, while projecting at 12' width at 16:9, your eyes may be zoomed and focused on a 6" square where the hockey puck is in play. Now rather than 4k lines, you're observing only observing 355 lines, which is quite detectable as different from 1080 (which would be only 86 lines).

The answer to the question has a lot more to do with the size of the projection and the content being played, than anything else. If you don't believe that, expand the concept to a 100 ft. projection width at 16:9, and 4k would have 6 lines per inch, versus 1080 at 1.6 lines per inch.

 

[2manyrocks]

I would think it would make a huge difference. The higher the resolution, the higher the pixel count. People who have 4K TVs talk about how much sharper the pictures are.
As you spread the picture out on a 12 ft screen, I have to think you get a much better picture. I don’t have a 4K to know, so hope someone that has a 4K projector can chime in. The projectors sure cost more.

What sorts of things do you intend to project onto a 12' screen? Text, charts, spreadsheets, pictures, video??? How many people are viewing and how far away are they from the projection screen?

 

[buckeyefarmer]

Thanks RS, that tool makes sense. 480p looks sharp on a small screen, once you go larger it sucks.
Even 480p looks good on a small screen, but terrible as you go bigger.

 

[JasperFrank]

Optoma UHD60. At least this is the one I've looked at that seems the best.

 

[cqaigy2]

I was the first person in my college to hand in a paper printed at home on a computer.
those printers were awful slow and ripping the perfs off made a mess.

For projections-they have short throw projectors so you can put them right up against the wall on the floor. Or do you want ceiling mount?
Looking at a high cost vs. low cost projector seems to make more of a difference in picture quality.
Lots of image processing to make the image clear and to offset any skew. Also quicker pixel updates so less artifacts.
Source material resolution is also key in getting better output as noted above.

Same here. I had a Commodore 64 using, i think it was called EazyWrite or something like that, took 20 minutes to load it and the printer couldn't do the part of the letter below the baseline. My prof was dubious about accepting it, but i finally talked him into it.