P3D Re: Projector manipulation? No, thanks!

["David W. Kesner" <drdave@xxxxxxxxxx>]

In p3d digest 3747 Dr. T. writes:

> Most mounts (minus the defectives, and
> please do not use defective batches of mounts as an
> example to justify this bad practice) confirm to certain
> standards. 

I realize that you have seen a whole lot more images that I probably 
ever will, but based on what I have seen so far this just isn't true. 
Although many mounts do have roughly the same standards, many 
do not. And we have to use defective batches to justify as these are 
the mounts being used and projected. That in itself is justification to 
not use those type of mounts.

You go on to say:

> There is a small difference between different mounts
> (I have noticed this when comparing the Albions and
> the RBTs) but this small difference does not justify
> adjusting the horizontal control IMO.

So you do confirm what I say after all. I did not claim there is a big 
difference, but a difference does exist. Maybe I am just more 
paticular or picky or sensitive to these "small" differences. 
Remember I am one of those that must have pin sharp focus as 
well. There is nothing that ruins a great image worse than soft focus 
(unless originally taken that way). I found this most disturbing at the 
only exhibition judging I attended.

> What you are saying just gives excuses to incompetent
> projectionists to torture us ("but these slides are
> mounted in all different mounts... so we'll have to
> adjust the projector for every individual slide.")

I fully support the school of no projector adjustment. I agree that it is 
torture to go through constant vertical, horizontal, and extreme focus 
adjustments. However, I do not think that an image has to suffer bad 
alignment just because it is in a different sized mount. I do think that 
a slide should suffer because it is mounted improperly. It will teach 
the mounter to do a better job next time.

This is the reason I support and vehemently promote the one mount 
- one method system. It not only allows one to project without any 
manipulation, but it also allows one to become extremely proficient 
in mounting.

> 3. Focus:  Yes, slides of different thicknesses 
> require refocusing.  This adjustment is necessary and 
> harmless.  It even helps an image to bring it to focus. 
> "Ahhhhh..." says the audience..., not "ouch!".

Why not start out with all images out of focus and then bring them in. 
If this is the effect you are looking for it would be better for a 
fade/dissolve that is in focus through the whole process.
 
> There! I proved my point:  Projection overmanipulation
> is not justified by the variety of existing mounts.

No you did not prove your point, you only stated your opinion as I 
did. Neither one of us is right we just have different "standards". 
However we do fully agree that the least amount of projector 
manipulation the better.

That's all for now,

David W. Kesner
Boise, Idaho, USA
drdave@xxxxxxxxxx