Anyone display their photos on an LCD TV?

not at all what you are asking but just for info interest

Olympus trade shows do this all the time straight from the camera

you can connect any liveview SLR to a TV and see whatever you can get on the cameras LCD. In this way you can demonstrate the use of the camera, menu structures etc

......and of course playback images

--
ʎǝlıɹ

plɹoʍ ǝɥʇ ɟo doʇ uo ǝɹɐ ǝʍ 'ɐılɐɹʇsnɐ uı

Attitude, Facetious, spouted. It's good to hear your views. But all I can say is that our customers often have the same beautiful print, framed and hanging on their wall for many years. we sometimes have customers come back because a 20x16 print has got damaged after fifteen years and they want it replaced to rehang it.

That is one print! You have thousands scrolling away forever emitting a carbon footprint for every second. I wonder which has the durability and staying power?
jules

Visualiza said:

Ok, now you're just being facetious. You know good and well that a digital scrolling photo album can be paused, stopped, and controlled as one desires. Once again, there's no practical way to print hundreds of photos, the same size as my 46" screen mind you, and display them for everyone to see.

As for the nonsense you spouted in the last three sentences, I'm not even going to bother getting pulled into an argument about that.

I've stated my opinion on the pros of having photos displayed on a large screen, while fully acknowledging that prints and tangible albums are good as well, but you aren't having any of it, with a "my way or the highway" attitude. I'm trying to show you that we can agree to disagree, but by your words, my opinions are fallacy(oddly enough you don't back that up with any explanation)and I'm a boy who likes toys. Reason enough for me to stop right here and now.

I'll just close this out by summing up what I've already stated. IMO, there's no reason the two can't coexist, as they both good for whatever reasons one can come up with. A good photograph will be a good photograph whether on a screen or on photo paper. Say what you want about either, but the convenience, scalability, and practicality of a screen simply can't be dismissed.

JulesJ said:

Um...a photo album! A screen rtequires to be looked at 100% of the time and the frequency of images is probably set to the same amount of time for each image. Different images require different amounts of time to look at them. One browses an album at ones own speed and can stop and take ones eyes of it to chat about a particular picture with other members of you family. On the screen it disapears before you want or stays too long and and one can't cjat about the picture because your on to the next one. You don't enjoy the pictures any more than in an album either it's a fallacy that you do. Admit it, boys like toys and because you 'can' you do. Give me a small print or a big print any day, it still beats the pants out of a glowing pile of puluting plastic. lol.
Jules

Visualiza said:

The size, sure, but the practicality? Convenience? The look is purely subjective if you ask me. For the record, I never was denying how stellar any particular print can look, but I do think a photograph on a big screen is second to none.

Explain to me how you would go about displaying hundreds of your favorite pictures at a family or social get-together, and automatically, no less?

The practicality and convenience simply cannot be denied. Prints are great, but so is displaying scores of different albums automatically.

I don't see why the two can't coexist.

JulesJ said:

A print reflect natural ambient light and a screen radiates it's own unnaturaly light. You can't really compare the two. Thety are like chalk and cheese. As for the size you CAN match that. As for the vibrancy i think if you mimicked a screen image on a print it would look very bad.
jules

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?

Ever tried stepping up to framed print and looking closely at it. ha.
jules

graybalanced wrote:
.

graybalanced said:

Also, you believe that a picture needs to be looked at 100% on screen. This is also false . When displaying from a computer, not only can you can stop on a frame, but in many apps you can zoom into details without leaving the slide show.

Click to expand...

Like you said, all prints require external light for them to be seen.

How do you guarantee all prints will be lit with the right light source and evenly lit.

Unlike museums, most rooms that people display their prints are not ideally lit and very few have the proper dedicated light sources for their prints.

You can easily calibrate a LCD screen, but not so controlling and calibrating room lighting.

JulesJ said:

A print reflect natural ambient light and a screen radiates it's own unnaturaly light. You can't really compare the two. Thety are like chalk and cheese. As for the size you CAN match that. As for the vibrancy i think if you mimicked a screen image on a print it would look very bad.

Click to expand...

It's true what you say. we used to ask our clients about the lighting that they were to use for their framed prints. That was in the early days of digital when metermerism was rampant and we (as in everyone) shouldn'r have been selling prints the B&W renditions from all the printer makers was so bad. Now with K3 inks metermerism is almost zero and b&w will look pretty good under most lighting. But you do still have a point i agree. colour is a lot more forgiving and photographers can get away with murder nowadadys! Lol.

I know this argument is going nowhere and it is up to each of us to decide which medium to view their pictures in, but you have to admit that a framed, professionally printed and framed print is at one end of the spectrum whereas an image on a screen is at the other. that is why we charge hundreds of pounds for a framed print and about 20% of that price for a disc with a screen useable jpg on it. And, we will only ever sell the disc as a second copy to a print boaught. we do not just sell a shot as a screen image. it's the quickest way for a photographer to go out of business. We've all heard the client who says he only needs jpgs and then goes off and has lousy prints made of your good work.
jules

Homl said:

How do you guarantee all prints will be lit with the right light source and evenly lit.

Unlike museums, most rooms that people display their prints are not ideally lit and very few have the proper dedicated light sources for their prints.

You can easily calibrate a LCD screen, but not so controlling and calibrating room lighting.

JulesJ said:

A print reflect natural ambient light and a screen radiates it's own unnaturaly light. You can't really compare the two. Thety are like chalk and cheese. As for the size you CAN match that. As for the vibrancy i think if you mimicked a screen image on a print it would look very bad.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?

You may all be in denial, if you don’t recognize that MANY,
or MOST of the people who get developing done they want a digital CD.
Wal-Mart and stores around the world are seeing this.
Pro photographers are on the same track, it is only a matter of time.

Sure, some people will always want a print, like some people still want to buy a Vinyl Record LP.
Analog, is becoming more and more a niche market.

-Steve

JulesJ said:

graybalanced said:

Also, you believe that a picture needs to be looked at 100% on screen. This is also false . When displaying from a computer, not only can you can stop on a frame, but in many apps you can zoom into details without leaving the slide show.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Yes, it can be difficult. It depends on how big the print is, and the nature of the glass. Often you can't get as close as you'd like or the print isn't large enough to show you the same level of detail as if you zoomed in on the electronic version.

Besides, you used the term "photo album" in your own post. That implies small prints. You can't really see details in small prints. Moving closer doesn't buy you much there, at least, not as much as zooming in on a high-resolution image on screen.

There is room for both prints and LCD displays.

Prints for a few special ones that get prominently display all the time; and large LCD TV as a digital photo album for the rest. Sure beats what is on TV.

JulesJ said:

I know this argument is going nowhere and it is up to each of us to decide which medium to view their pictures in, but you have to admit that a framed, professionally printed and framed print is at one end of the spectrum whereas an image on a screen is at the other. that is why we charge hundreds of pounds for a framed print and about 20% of that price for a disc with a screen useable jpg on it. And, we will only ever sell the disc as a second copy to a print boaught. we do not just sell a shot as a screen image. it's the quickest way for a photographer to go out of business. We've all heard the client who says he only needs jpgs and then goes off and has lousy prints made of your good work.
jules

Click to expand...

...so I burned a few photos from a recent shoot to a DVD and played them on my Toshiba Regza 37" through a Pioneer HD DVD player, all 1080P using a HDMI cable.

These shots were from a D700. The detail and clarity was truly jaw-dropping but they all looked oversharpened, some more than others. Otherwise, the quality was astounding. The colors popped and they looked very good close to the screen although on very close inspection some aliasing was evident.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
(Equipment in profile)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

There's a 40" screen on the wall and a slideshow loops all day showing adds, health tips, etc. with accompanying photographs. The slideshow was done using ProShow Gold (I use this also) which is arguably the best software for the purpose out there.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
(Equipment in profile)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

tbower said:

...so I burned a few photos from a recent shoot to a DVD and played them on my Toshiba Regza 37" through a Pioneer HD DVD player, all 1080P using a HDMI cable.

Click to expand...

That was actually 480 up converted to 1080 Right?

tbower said:

These shots were from a D700. The detail and clarity was truly jaw-dropping but they all looked oversharpened, some more than others. Otherwise, the quality was astounding. The colors popped and they looked very good close to the screen although on very close inspection some aliasing was evident.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
(Equipment in profile)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

Click to expand...

--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

The upconversion 480 and 1080 format only apply only to VIDEO signals,
not static piucture files from a cd or sd card etc.

The resolution of 1080p is 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 equal to 2,073,600 pixels in total.

-steve

springbock said:

tbower said:

...so I burned a few photos from a recent shoot to a DVD and played them on my Toshiba Regza 37" through a Pioneer HD DVD player, all 1080P using a HDMI cable.

Click to expand...

That was actually 480 up converted to 1080 Right?

springbock said:

These shots were from a D700. The detail and clarity was truly jaw-dropping but they all looked oversharpened, some more than others. Otherwise, the quality was astounding. The colors popped and they looked very good close to the screen although on very close inspection some aliasing was evident.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I have thousands of scanned negatives and thousands of native digital pics all stored on a terabyte usb hard drive (with a backup on another hard drive of course). I have this usb enclosure hooked up to my PS3. My PS3 is hooked up to my stereo and my stereo is hooked up to my Sharp 1080P LCD and my Sanyo 720P projector. I don't re-size anything. The pics are my originals except they are converted to jpg at max. resolution. Some scanned negs are 20 to 40 mb.

With the PS3 I also have another terabyte USB enclosure hooked up with all of my music. I then have a slide show running (PS3 has a cool free down-loadable one) along with music (playlist actually).

Anyway the pics look darn good on both the TV and the projector without messing with resolutions.

I love the PS3 it is a great media player for the price. I can even stream photos or music or videos from my pc.

Xbox 360 is similar except it doesn't play blu-rays.

--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

springbock said:

I don't re-size anything. The pics are my originals except they are converted to jpg at max. resolution. Some scanned negs are 20 to 40 mb.

Click to expand...

There are only two reasons to downsample images for a TV. Performance and disk space. If your computer/console is fast enough that it can resize full res JPEGs on the fly without holding up the slide show, and your disk is large enough that there's plenty of space for full res max quality JPEGs, then sure, don't waste time resizing.

I wasn't sure how to answer that. As you say, they were just JPEGS being "played" by the DVD player.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
(Equipment in profile)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

my PS3 is nice and fast, but when i use one of my older lcd diplays with the sd card reader built in, it is very slow at zoom or rotating large images.

So I need to be resized for that TV if I plan to use it's SD card reader.

-steve

graybalanced said:

springbock said:

I don't re-size anything. The pics are my originals except they are converted to jpg at max. resolution. Some scanned negs are 20 to 40 mb.

Click to expand...

There are only two reasons to downsample images for a TV. Performance and disk space. If your computer/console is fast enough that it can resize full res JPEGs on the fly without holding up the slide show, and your disk is large enough that there's plenty of space for full res max quality JPEGs, then sure, don't waste time resizing.

Click to expand...

--
-Steve

Check out my photo galleries:
http://iqfanatic.smugmug.com

Stephen Christie said:

The upconversion 480 and 1080 format only apply only to VIDEO signals,
not static piucture files from a cd or sd card etc.

The resolution of 1080p is 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 equal to 2,073,600 pixels in total.

-steve

Click to expand...

His dvd player is not HD. It only up-converts to HD. What rez jpg can a regular DVD display?

DVD spec... 720x480 NOT 1920 x 1080.

I believe your Pioneer DVD if it is a regular DVD player is not providing high def pics.

I was basically letting him know that his Pioneer is not HD even if it has an HDMI out. Unless it is a blu-ray of course.

Stephen Christie said:

springbock said:

tbower said:

...so I burned a few photos from a recent shoot to a DVD and played them on my Toshiba Regza 37" through a Pioneer HD DVD player, all 1080P using a HDMI cable.

Click to expand...

That was actually 480 up converted to 1080 Right?

Stephen Christie said:

These shots were from a D700. The detail and clarity was truly jaw-dropping but they all looked oversharpened, some more than others. Otherwise, the quality was astounding. The colors popped and they looked very good close to the screen although on very close inspection some aliasing was evident.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
'The truth is rarely pure and never simple' Oscar Wilde

We have only ever sold prints for the last twenty or so years. At the moment, in this recession, we are snowed under with work. It is not a matter of time with our business. Speak for yourself, but not for us please. Off course a lot of our success, in fact most of course, is the standard of our photography. We are very luck and are privileged. But don't assume that you know the future of professional photography by making sweeping statements. There will always be a market for great prints. Screens are a convenient way to view pictures and great for common public areas. I wouldn't have one in my home. We do our viewings on screens (digital projection). The advantage is that it helps to sell large prints and clients can see their images the size that they can buy them in the frame that they will buy. But we tell them that the quality that they see should not even be compared to the final print.
jules

Stephen Christie said:

Pro photographers are on the same track, it is only a matter of time.

Sure, some people will always want a print, like some people still want to buy a ?

Click to expand...

Yes, and by the second loop as the doctor keeps you waiting you feel like........seeing a doctor! lol.
jules

tbower said:

There's a 40" screen on the wall and a slideshow loops all day showing adds, health tips, etc. with accompanying photographs. The slideshow was done using ProShow Gold (I use this also) which is arguably the best software for the purpose out there.

--
Tom, Ohio USA
(Equipment in profile)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/zuikosan/
http://tbower.zenfolio.com/

'One should not LIVE in the past, but one should never FORGET the past'.

'Did you ever get the feeling that the world was a tuxedo and you were a pair of brown shoes?'
---George Gobel, 1969

Click to expand...

--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?

Again, your quoting video display numbers not static image display numbers.

Regular DVD's can contain 5000x5000 pixel photos and my TF tries to display all o it, it comes close at 1900x1080 and I can zoom to 100% which gives me about 200% zoom equiv. It all works on my TV and regular DVD's.
I have a HD-DVD player and a BL-DVD player and a old regular DVD player.

--
-Steve