Direct Feed from Camcorder to Projector

[ruinexplorer]

Originally Posted by balex

Seem to be finding - with some work - reputable companies (one a recommendation from a local a/v house) that are offering some deals in the $800 to $1000 range.

Probably will do OK here. Investigate replacement lamps along with the projector itself - how easy to obtain, how pricey, quality, etc.

<snip> lighting may be an issue. Considering purchasing a small on-camera light for extra fill during the live segments - may even consider some good LED lights not designed for the purpose. Have read that color can be severely altered as a result of LED in video, but that it leans towards greens which, frankly, would fit well with what I'm doing... Save me apply a gel/filter. .

On camera lights will have distance limitations. So depending on how far your camera is from the presenter, this will probably not work. Of course since you are front projecting and the screen will likely be near the presenter, you need the most control of your light possible.

Was strongly considering this, until I found this little PowerPoint add-in: PFCPro

It allows live video from a video-in source. My only concern is delay, but I'll be testing that over the next week (as I mix ordering/delivering equipment with constant travel, shifting location, shows and very little time... )

This would allow me to present and switch to live feed where need be with only one remote, as well as give me a brighter image from the projector as the source will be the computer rather than the camera itself.

I originally didn't want to introduce a computer into the middle of it all, but it's become more and more appealing over time - assuming that it all works.

The good news is that I'm finally feeling that a direct feed from my camera directly to a projector is not a problem at all - so in the worst case, I can always fall back to the direct connection and/or a combination of a switch for both computer and camera operation.

Let us know how this works. I have my doubts for use with live camera feed, but it does sound interesting. I would still recommend a switcher. If it is an active switcher, it will add the same qualities that a computer will do and will be better than most laptops. It also will give you better transitions (though if it only has one video card, the live image will freeze while switching to the second image). Check out this switcher which is essentially a knock-off of the Barco/Folsom Presentation Pro which is a favorite among many AV companies.

Davin

[waynehoskins]

Frame delay running through a computer is going to be hell, and you're going to have to have a beefy computer to even keep up. Live video is big, lots of pixels coming very fast.

Expect a 10-20 frame delay.

How is a camera feed through a computer any brighter than a direct camera feed?

FSR makes good stuff, here in the USA even.

I presume you're going the camcorder route rather than the television camera route. It's a shame they don't make studio kits for the cheap camcorders. A studio kit will make your life much much easier.

What I would do is look for a good deal on a low-end TV camera, like Panasonic's F250. They're usually available in the sub-250 range on Ebay, sometimes with all or part of a studio kit even. Presuming a 12X lens (most common) with no extender will do. Goodness, the lenses on my cameras (and they're only Fuji 12Xs) are larger than most camcorders these days.

Is the camera going to have a locked-down shot, or will it be moving?

[museav]

Originally Posted by waynehoskins

How is a camera feed through a computer any brighter than a direct camera feed?

I had the very same question.


Balex, some of the stated desires seem to conflict. For example, you say you want a DLP projector because it is video then later in the same post say you are thinking of running it all through a computer and also note that you are not worried about the lighting being accurate or color rendition. Or that you note that contrast is important in the projector selection but then do not seem to be addressing the image contrast, which is what actually matters, and seem to be assuming that you can control any ambient light on the screen and have not even discussed the screen type or surface material, all of which relate to the perceived image quality and the audience area you are serving.

If you are taking the composite video output of a consumer digital camera, running into an unknown PC capture card, processing that in a $130 PowerPoint add-on and the running that out of the PC to a very inexpensive projector intended more for presentations to a small audience, that may provide an image that you may find acceptable (it also may not) but I frankly don't think I'd worry too much about the specific projection technology used.

You also seem to be thinking front projection when rear projection would be much more common for this type of application and for many good reasons. Think about how between the screen, projector, camera lighting and room lighting you are going to avoid interfering with the audience's viewing the image or keep from casting shadows on the screen. The mention of a 70" x70" screen also shows some possible misunderstanding as that is not a video format and with the 1024x768 projector noted you'd actually have a 52.7" high by 70" wide image. A 70"x70" screen, or a square format screen in general, would not usually be a good choice when you are projecting standard computer and/or video images. And since you noted you will be switching between video and computer images, that 53" x 70" image size is probably good if your furthest viewer is maybe 25' to 35' away, but that might not work for an audience of 400.

A couple of corrections. Rear screen projection is not brighter, with the same screen gain front and rear projection would provide the same brightness. However, rear projection is less sensitive to ambient light and thus can result in a higher image contrast for the same brightness. DLP does not tend to be brighter, X ANSI lumens is X ANSI lumens regardless of how it is generated, but again, the higher contrast may make it appear brighter. I think the important thing to get from this is that perceived image brightness involves several factors other than the projector brightness and those other factors need to be considered. For example, keeping the same white level but making the blacks blacker actually makes an image look brighter by increasing the contrast ratio even though the peak brightness did not change.

It might really help if you better defined the application. Rather than focusing on the equipment, what are you trying to do and what are your goals? There may be big differences between something that simply puts an image on the screen and what you really need to do or the impression you are wanting to give. This might also help resolve some of the differing indications of your priorities and goals.

[SHARYNF]

Brad made a couple of technical corrections to my comments.

My point was based on PERCEPTION not a measurement. In the lower end of possible projectors, the higher contrast, better performance in ambient light is a factor, despite metrics.
PC based images tend to look brighter based on a couple of factors in my experience.

One is PC images do not have to meet broadcast standards for levels of white and black so again constrast can be higher. . So if you test a setup with your standard pc splash screen it will tend to look to the viewer as being brighter.

How well the projector converts the interlaced image to progressive can also be a factor, as well as the scaling. while a pc image typically can be projected at the native resolution of the projector.

Last but not least is on the lower end consumer level projectors, the stated values tend to be all over the place, and what one manufacturer calls 2000 lumens vs another can be confusing.

Sharyn

[waynehoskins]

So low-end projector specs are like amplifier and loudspeaker power ratings .. that makes sense. Much as 2K ANSI lumens is exactly what it is, so 200 watts RMS of pink noise into an 8 ohm load is exactly what it is (sort of).

But 100 IREs is 100 IREs, and 7.5 IREs is 7.5 IREs, no matter where it's coming from. Though you're right, computers do the 0 IRE thing, I think.

There's something to scaling the image using an ourboard box, since the scaling circuits in most low-end projectors are pretty crap. I need to do that at the church sometime.

The screen is too small and the wrong shape. I'd be thinking about a 9x12 at smallest, not knowing much about the space or show.

We need more information about how whatever-it-ends-up-being will be used. What's the artistic goal? What light levels does it (the screen) have to overcome? What low-light conditions does it (the camera) have to endure? You can rear-project? And so on...

Welcome, by the way, to the world of broadcast! (though you've arrived here rather unintentionally)

[balex]

Okay, okay... I'm getting schooled here.

It's amazing that what seems like such a simple, straight forward thing to a non-video professional is in fact an extraordinarily detailed process filled with extremely complex decisions!

Let's just get down to the nitty gritty regarding specifically what I'm doing, with the hopes that by hearing my needs and needs alone (absent what I *think* may work, because clearly I'm mistaken...) you will all be able to make some recommendations.

(quick note: I was able to test live video as fed through my laptop today. you were all right, the lag is too much to make it feasible - very kung-fu movie-like in terms of actual spoken word as matched up with the visual action of speaking... I will not be going through my laptop, so it's officially a two source (vid cam and laptop) project, between which I'll need to switch)

It might really help if you better defined the application. Rather than focusing on the equipment, what are you trying to do and what are your goals? There may be big differences between something that simply puts an image on the screen and what you really need to do or the impression you are wanting to give. This might also help resolve some of the differing indications of your priorities and goals.

Precisely. Here's the scoop.

I'm a solo entertainer working in the resort, corporate and college markets. I present a stage show that is sometimes on beautiful stages with as much control over lighting as one could want, complete with a full tech crew to run everything, all the way to banquet halls with temporary staging and minimal control over lighting (though I can usually bring most of the "house" down while maintaining a hot section on the "stage")

I'm looking to incorporate two things into the show.

1.) Projections of very basic slides (powerpoint) with textual content, still
images, minor animations and some short video clips, and

2.) Live video to act as image magnification for certain sections of the show
so that the audience can get a more "close-up" view of some of the
action and props. The close-ups will be of my body, and will be limited
roughly to the waist up.

Camera will be stationary, and for the IMAG sections I will be stepping into the predefined stage area marked off as covered by the camera for just such a purpose.

Screens will vary in style, and in many cases they exist on-site. However, I do have a lycra/spandex screen (from www.djscreen.com - gain 1.5 ) that I can always have available. I can stretch this up to 96" x 96" (physical limitations of the stand I'm using)

Front projection *or* rear projection is a possibility with this screen, and rear projection is sometimes possible with on-site screens as well. I'm not *always* limited to front projection.

I need to rely upon running everything myself, which means that a video switch needs to be either a.) run by remote or b.) easily positioned on-stage for me to access during the show and manually make a change.

I will be controlling the powerpoint by concealed remote.

As audiences get larger, I typically have much more control over lighting - the larger audiences are typically found in the theaters. I currently have a regular weekly show at a roughly 350 seat theater and we have full control over all lighting. That said, when theaters get larger than this, there are often projection systems already setup so I need not worry so much about providing my own equipment

In contrast to that venue, I have another weekly show at a more "corporate" style venue for roughly 100 to 150 people, and while the lighting is basic in-ceiling room lighting (not flourescent) I do have the ability to turn off a great deal of the "house" and retain or switch off lighting that is closer to the stage. It can get pretty dark. That said, I will need to be visible during each projection, so we will always have some stage light - but given variable screen positioning, the screen can sometimes be located in the dark, away from the stage light, other times not.

Whether it be in a small college auditorium, a hotel banquet room or a small theater, it's these two types of shows and those within their range that I typically would have to provide my own equipment for projection.

I'm concerned about contrast and the visibility of smaller detail for one routine only, wherein a fairly thin black string needs to be seen against the pale complexion of the skin on my stomach. All other applications need not be so particular - video in all other applications need not be stellar, so long as it enhances watching it live on-stage, and the powerpoint slides won't contain anything that needs to be super sharp - though I wouldn't mind if the video clips looked good... No fine detail like intricate spreadsheets will be projected, though.

Those are roughly the conditions, roughly the need, and it *all* has to fit within a reasonable budget AND most importantly, be portable enough to not take up much room in my vehicle. I travel solo - no crew, no big vehicle, and constantly.

I'm thinking that what I need, without going into specifics (which I'm hoping you can help me with) is:

-A screen (got it - either in house, or the DJ Screen)
-A Projector (need it)
-A Camera (got it - a Sony Handycam DCR-HC28 mounted on tripod)
-A Laptop (got it)
-A Switch (need it)
-A Scaler? (not sure if I need it! you tell me)

As you can see, this doesn't need to be MegaChurch or MegaRockTour quality . I need to project live video and powerpoint in these somewhat variable conditions, and I need to switch between them. The switch doesn't even need to be super refined or advanced.

I'm looking at sub-$1000 projectors at this point, and while I'm willing to shell out a bit for a switch/scaler if I need it, I don't have an extra $600 to $1500+ for the pro video ones I've been finding.

Is it possible to present passable projections to these types of groups to augment a solo show without breaking the bank or making it too complex?

On another note, though I haven't yet solved my problems, let me thank you ALL for the feedback that you've given thus far! I've learned more about these technologies (though not nearly enough) in the past couple days than I ever thought I'd learn. It's interesting and, despite the hurdles, continues to intrigue me. Though I'll never possess as detailed a knowledge of this field as the lot of you, I do hope that by circling around the fringes here I'll at least become a knowledgeable consumer - I owe you all a great big thanks.

[derekleffew]

balex, your show isn't called Puppetry of the ...? Nevermind, probably not. You are to be commended for wanting to do this to the best of your abilities and budget. By planning to make your act self-sufficient, you've taken a huge step in guaranteeing success, as well as relieving the presenter of the responsibility of having to source and probably rent over-priced A/V equipment, that's possibly not suitable anyway. We've all had an act show up at five minutes to doors and start demanding things. Ninety-five percent of the time the short answer is "no", and the presentation suffers. Four percent of the time the requests are honored, but the presentation still suffers.

My largest concern is the lack of a camera operator and/or video director, but you seem to have accounted for that. Is there going to be any audio coming off the computer with the Powerpoint or video clips? Do you have your own wireless lav or headset mic?

Keep asking questions and we'll keep answering them. That's the way CB rolls.

[balex]

your show isn't called Puppetry of the ...? Nevermind, probably not.

No, but I can do some pretty interesting things with my... - well, as you say, "nevermind"...

You are to be commended for wanting to do this to the best of your abilities and budget. By planning to make your act self-sufficient, you've taken a huge step in guaranteeing success, as well as relieving the presenter of the responsibility of having to source and probably rent over-priced A/V equipment, that's possibly not suitable anyway. We've all had an act show up at five minutes to doors and start demanding things. Ninety-five percent of the time the short answer is "no", and the presentation suffers. Four percent of the time the requests are honored, but the presentation still suffers.

You have no idea how nice it is to hear this. I'm always seeking to improve the show, and while the tech guys that I find myself working with during my travels always amaze me with what they are able to accomplish (and how the heck can sound and light techs get SO MUCH RIGHT with SO LITTLE INSTRUCTION - EVERY time? It's astonishing.), it's often the case that, as you say, sometimes equipment isn't available, rentals are not usually cost effective and, frankly, I enjoy knowing that there's a baseline of excellence in the show below which it never dips, and I can only accomplish that if I arrive as prepared as I can be and have maximum control over (even my variable) conditions.

My largest concern is the lack of a camera operator and/or video director, but you seem to have accounted for that.

Indeed. And in truth, of all the worries that I have, I'm not at all worried about the need for a camera operator. I truly don't think that it's necessary for my application. I have considered - for that one routine that I mentioned - utilizing a spectator to operate the camera to zoom in and follow the action (it's only a basic consumer camera, afterall). I can still do that, and it would add a fun interactive feature to that piece (and some fun unpredictability), but in truth a stationary setup, with a covered spot into which I step on stage, is going to be more than adequate.

Is there going to be any audio coming off the computer with the Powerpoint or video clips?

Audio is all set. I arrive with a nice little self-built box that includes two wireless receivers, a wireless handheld mic, a body pack with the option between a standard lav and a Countryman E6, a wireless two-way LCD queing system for my iPod (small and invisible - it's nice), all run into a small Behringer 12 channel mixer. I literally show up with one box that I open up, run one extension cord into for power and one cable out for output (house choice - 1/4" or XLR) and I'm good to go with full control of sound myself. Minimal fuss for the house. Maximum control for me. Audio for the show is a breeze because I'm prepared.

In the event that house sound is not available - does happen with some venues, unfortunately - I also travel with a small, rugged amp and speakers with enough power for several hundred people in most rooms or outdoors.

When I move to powerpoint projections I'll be converting most of the audio over to be computer-based, but I don't foresee any problems with it. I'll be running the audio from the computer into my mixer so as to maintain the one output from my system.

Ideally, I'm looking to get projections running as smoothly as my audio. I've put a lot of work into it and it's been well worth it.

[museav]

You have some definite challenges. The one that seems most obvious is lighting. You apparently need to light yourself and specific props for direct viewing as well as for the camera and at the same time you want to keep light off the projection screen. It sounds like many of your venues do not have that kind of light control. In addition, you may not like the result from the camera with some of the lighting it appears you encounter. While providing key, back and side lighting may not be feasible, I would really try to see how some of the lighting you typically encounter looks as glare on the top of the head and shadows at the eyes and under the chin, as well as a very two dimensional appearance, that commonly result from basic overhead lighting may be an undesired result. Probably the best way to address this would be to carry some minimal lighting of your own, but it sounds like that is not realistic practically or budegtarily.

If you are presenting simple stills and animations and can control the size of the text used, then you may be able to address a larger audience. However, if your stand is limited to 96"x96" and the screen is stretched within that, then the image area will be smaller, maybe 6'-7' wide, thus a 54" to 63" high image. I would say that would generally be sufficient for maybe a 35' to 50' deep audience area, but with your comment about wanting them to see a black string against your skin, a realistic maximum viewer distance may be more like half that. In fact that black string reference, with it being such a small size and so linear, really concerns me in regards to getting an image that gives the result you may want, it may even be unrealistic unless you can control the camera to zoom in for that one bit and then back out later.

With a 72"x54" to 84"x63" image and some control of the light levels on the screen, a 2,000 to 3,000 lumen projector may be fine. However, you noted sometimes using other, I'm assuming potentially larger, screens and as discussed above, you may need a much larger image for some audiences. In those cases you may need either more control over the lighting on the screen and/or a higher output projector. FWIW, for several reasons I sort of doubt a screen that can be used as front or rear projection has a gain of 1.5 and I did not actually see any mention of gain in the information on the web site referenced.

If the latency from video through your laptop is unacceptable, then you may have to switch between the computer and camera sources. You could do this with the projector itself but you will likely get a significant transition between the two as the projector switches, resyncs and rescales. An external switcher/scaler or seamless switcher could provide a much nicer transition but anything worth considering would seem to be outside your budget.

Many people find that if projected images, especially I-mag, is not done well it can actually detract from the presentation rather than adding to it. Unfortunately, you seem to be in the position of being able to make what you want happen but due to some of the limitations you are having to address, likely with a result that may be less than desirable or even unacceptable. With the applications, variety of environments and budget noted I would not be at all comfortable suggesting that you will get an acceptable result. However, since 'acceptable' is entirely subjective, I would also not go so far as to say that you would not get an acceptable result. This may simply be a case of doing what you can within your limitations and seeing if you find the results acceptable.

[balex]

While providing key, back and side lighting may not be feasible, I would really try to see how some of the lighting you typically encounter looks as glare on the top of the head and shadows at the eyes and under the chin, as well as a very two dimensional appearance, that commonly result from basic overhead lighting may be an undesired result.

I'm willing to look a bit odd - sickly even - in those venues that provide only overhead lighting. Not ideal, certainly, but I'm willing to put up with it.

Probably the best way to address this would be to carry some minimal lighting of your own, but it sounds like that is not realistic practically or budegtarily.

But stranger things have happened. I can't carry a whole elaborate light kit, certainly, but a few well-placed cans on some basic tripods light stands might be feasible.

I would never want to find myself in a position of having to do this, but I did once see one unfortunate performer get stuck in a small multi-purpose room at a university for a show and, with projections and without any stage lighting, he very creatively got the organizers to procure two bright overhead projectors (the kind so commonly used in schools to project transparencies), positioned them down left and down right and turned them on to be used as a bright wash. He then proceeded to perform a show that included projections via a small, portable business projector and frankly, all went surprisingly well!

Thankfully I've never had it that bad, but it was good to see such innovative tackling of the obstacles. So, I feel confident that, even though the situations may not always be ideal, it can be pulled off.

In fact that black string reference, with it being such a small size and so linear, really concerns me in regards to getting an image that gives the result you may want, it may even be unrealistic unless you can control the camera to zoom in for that one bit and then back out later.

I can indeed zoom in quite close for this bit. If all is taped off pre-show (so I know where the action will be taking place and what the camera is to capture) this shouldn't present a problem.

With a 72"x54" to 84"x63" image and some control of the light levels on the screen, a 2,000 to 3,000 lumen projector may be fine. However, you noted sometimes using other, I'm assuming potentially larger, screens and as discussed above, you may need a much larger image for some audiences. In those cases you may need either more control over the lighting on the screen and/or a higher output projector.

Encouraging to hear, and for larger audiences/screens I suppose that I'm just going to have to experiment and see how it all works out! As I say though, typically as the audiences get larger, the tech available on-site improves as well, and this can be everything from screens to projectors to lighting control.

FWIW, for several reasons I sort of doubt a screen that can be used as front or rear projection has a gain of 1.5 and I did not actually see any mention of gain in the information on the web site referenced.

I'm skeptical as well. I didn't see the info on the website so I contacted the manufacturer. That's where I got the number. But just like you, I have my doubts regarding the number.

If the latency from video through your laptop is unacceptable, then you may have to switch between the computer and camera sources. You could do this with the projector itself but you will likely get a significant transition between the two as the projector switches, resyncs and rescales.

That's what I feared.

An external switcher/scaler or seamless switcher could provide a much nicer transition but anything worth considering would seem to be outside your budget.

A nice member of this forum sent me a link to an affordable digital scan converter that looks like it might do the job, so who knows... There might be options.

However, since 'acceptable' is entirely subjective, I would also not go so far as to say that you would not get an acceptable result. This may simply be a case of doing what you can within your limitations and seeing if you find the results acceptable.

Agreed. I think that at this point, I just need to gather as much good advice as I can and then jump in and see what happens!