Posted by William Davis on 01/14/06 17:46

In article <bvqhs1l3ngpdub9kt9pb2rsbjrenthsi87@4ax.com>,
Martin Heffels <mitch.mcNeilljn@sprint.ca> wrote:

> On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 04:01:38 -0800, "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xpr7t.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Cool your jets, Mr. Heffels. Mr. Davis is explaining
>
> Sorry if the tone of my message was a bit wrong. I am
> merely curious why he didn't use ND's in the first place.
> Maybe they screwed up the projection or something?
> Again, just being curious in a friendly sense :)
>
> cheers
>
> -martin-

No offense taken, Martin.

I really wanted to emphasize the fact that I was so WRONG with my
initial idea that to get a really good projected background image at
that size, I'd need to rent a BIG ASSED 3000+ ANSI lumen projector.
Remember this was years ago when that was an expensive rental - not
something you could pick up for 1200 bucks at Costco!
(Actually, IIRC, I almost went with a 10,000 ANSI lumen unit, which
would have been even MORE embarrassing!)

(remember this isn't information about YOUR situation, just about mine.
Your throw might be longer or your ambient may be different and you MAY
need way more lumens - it's just what I experienced.)

The point was that I discovered that shooting directly at RP screens (or
even projected images on a wall with a modern video camera somehow
requires less light than I had previously guessed.

This was reinforced for me about 10 years ago when the NBA All Star game
was played in Phoenix. I was given passes to the media day and noticed
that all the fancy motion gobos and slides they were projecting in the
concorse looked amazingly dim (almost not even noticible) to the naked
eye as I walked around. Then I went home and watched the same images on
NBC and those same logos really POPPED.

Don't know why, but there's something counter-intuitive about brightness
of projected images and how cameras perceive them.

Go figure.

[Back to original message]