Digital projector

On 9/20/2017 10:29 AM, philo wrote:
A friend of mine wants to project images on (presumably) frosted glass
and have folks pose in front of it for portraits.

She told me she's seen commercial grade projectors specifically designed
for this but the cost is approx $10k


Would a consumer grade projector such as one could purchase from Best
Buy for under $1000 be able to do the job?

If so, I'd like to pass the info on to her...she will be moving to a
major tourist center in about two months

After reading the thread, I would suggest she try an ordinary projector,
with a right to return, or if feasible, check one out in a brick and
mortar store.

--
PeterN

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Outdoors? If so, the natural light levels might be the problem.
Wouldn't it be easier to add the background later?

It would be indoors.

My first bit of advice was to superimpose in Photoshop. She said that
was not an option as the people would need to interact with the image
when they posed. Additionally she wanted to shoot and print within a few
minutes.

The TV people do it, or did it, for the weather reports. They presented
a map that they could not see, was added by postprocess, but real time.
A video camera with a monitor in front of the subject would show the
final result.

they can see the map and whatever else. otherwise they wouldn't know
where to move their hands to point out stuff.

No, they don't.

yes they most certainly do. you've clearly never been in a tv studio.
you can even see them glancing at one of the monitors every so often.

They explained the method with another camera in a
documentary and clearly said the speaker could not see the map at all,
and that they had to memorize it.

what documentary was this??

that would be the exception, and to do that is *stupid*.

I'm not saying that everybody does it the same way.

good thing, because everybody doesn't do it that way.

backpedaling, as usual.

Thank you

On 09/20/2017 10:29 AM, philo wrote:
A friend of mine wants to project images on (presumably) frosted glass
and have folks pose in front of it for portraits.

She told me she's seen commercial grade projectors specifically designed
for this but the cost is approx $10k


Would a consumer grade projector such as one could purchase from Best
Buy for under $1000 be able to do the job?

If so, I'd like to pass the info on to her...she will be moving to a
major tourist center in about two months


Years (many years!) ago, there was a system for front projection of a
background from a 35mm slide. The results were good, if you selected
your background tactfully, and set up your lights correctly.

I am the lucky (?) owner of the Bowens version of this system. The way
it works is so:
There is a special reflective background screen. When light is reflected
straight-on, it is blinding. When light is reflected at an angle, it is
very muted. The screen is similar to the reflective lettering on stop signs.
The camera (I used a Mamiya 645, with IIRC a 100mm lens) looks at the
subject in front of the screen through a piece of glass angled down at
45 degrees inside a lens shade.
Below the mirror, looking up at the 45 degree glass is a 35mm slide
projector, with a zoom lens to adjust the size of the slide image.

The image that appears in the viewfinder is a combination of the slide
and the subject in front of the screen. You can see a very very faint
image on the screen if you are looking at it straight on outside of the
viewfinder.
Subject lighting must be shielded as much as possible from the screen,
to avoid washing out the slide image.
When you trip the shutter, a strobe inside the unit fires, illuminating
the slide. You slave the subject strobes from that.

If your friend is interested in something like this, you may give her my
email address and I will communicate directly with her. If she is
interested in buying my setup, that's a possibility, too.

--
Ken Hart

On 09/20/2017 11:33 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Outdoors? If so, the natural light levels might be the problem.
Wouldn't it be easier to add the background later?

It would be indoors.

My first bit of advice was to superimpose in Photoshop. She said that
was not an option as the people would need to interact with the image
when they posed. Additionally she wanted to shoot and print within a few
minutes.

The TV people do it, or did it, for the weather reports. They presented
a map that they could not see, was added by postprocess, but real time.
A video camera with a monitor in front of the subject would show the
final result.

they can see the map and whatever else. otherwise they wouldn't know
where to move their hands to point out stuff.

But no, I don't know how exactly to do that. Perhaps Chroma Screen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key

yep, usually called green screen because it's almost always green.


They can see the map and whatever else by virtue of judiciously placed
monitors. There is no image on the green background. Watch the
weatherman's eyes, and you will soon figure out where the monitors are
located.

The standard for modern TV studio chroma-key is a green screen.
Electronically, everything that is the proper shade of green in the
image is replaced by the background image. It is imperative that the
performer's wardrobe be selected carefully.

--
Ken Hart

On Sep 20, 2017, Ken Hart wrote
(in article ):

On 09/20/2017 11:33 AM, nospam wrote:
In , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Outdoors? If so, the natural light levels might be the problem.
Wouldn't it be easier to add the background later?

It would be indoors.

My first bit of advice was to superimpose in Photoshop. She said that
was not an option as the people would need to interact with the image
when they posed. Additionally she wanted to shoot and print within a few
minutes.

The TV people do it, or did it, for the weather reports. They presented
a map that they could not see, was added by postprocess, but real time.
A video camera with a monitor in front of the subject would show the
final result.

they can see the map and whatever else. otherwise they wouldn't know
where to move their hands to point out stuff.

But no, I don't know how exactly to do that. Perhaps Chroma Screen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key

yep, usually called green screen because it's almost always green.

They can see the map and whatever else by virtue of judiciously placed
monitors. There is no image on the green background. Watch the
weatherman's eyes, and you will soon figure out where the monitors are
located.

The standard for modern TV studio chroma-key is a green screen.
Electronically, everything that is the proper shade of green in the
image is replaced by the background image. It is imperative that the
performer's wardrobe be selected carefully.

Yup! wardrobe selection is important;
http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article825389.ece/ALTERNATES/s1200/Jessica%20Starr%20shows%20why%20weather%20girls%20 should%20not%20wear%20a%20Green%20Dress
or
http://tinyurl.com/y8c7rgre

--

Regards,
Savageduck

In article , Ken Hart
wrote:

Outdoors? If so, the natural light levels might be the problem.
Wouldn't it be easier to add the background later?

It would be indoors.

My first bit of advice was to superimpose in Photoshop. She said that
was not an option as the people would need to interact with the image
when they posed. Additionally she wanted to shoot and print within a few
minutes.

The TV people do it, or did it, for the weather reports. They presented
a map that they could not see, was added by postprocess, but real time.
A video camera with a monitor in front of the subject would show the
final result.

they can see the map and whatever else. otherwise they wouldn't know
where to move their hands to point out stuff.

But no, I don't know how exactly to do that. Perhaps Chroma Screen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_key

yep, usually called green screen because it's almost always green.

They can see the map and whatever else by virtue of judiciously placed
monitors. There is no image on the green background. Watch the
weatherman's eyes, and you will soon figure out where the monitors are
located.

yep. that's the point.

The standard for modern TV studio chroma-key is a green screen.
Electronically, everything that is the proper shade of green in the
image is replaced by the background image. It is imperative that the
performer's wardrobe be selected carefully.

avoid green, which is not a big deal.

it's also imperative that the screen is properly and evenly lit.

In article .com,
Savageduck wrote:

The standard for modern TV studio chroma-key is a green screen.
Electronically, everything that is the proper shade of green in the
image is replaced by the background image. It is imperative that the
performer's wardrobe be selected carefully.

Yup! wardrobe selection is important;

http://i4.mirror.co.uk/incoming/arti...200/Jessica%20
Starr%20shows%20why%20weather%20girls%20should%20n ot%20wear%20a%20Green%20Dress

yet another reason to visit ann arbor.

On 2017-09-20 19:18, nospam wrote:
In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:


Outdoors? If so, the natural light levels might be the problem.
Wouldn't it be easier to add the background later?

It would be indoors.

My first bit of advice was to superimpose in Photoshop. She said that
was not an option as the people would need to interact with the image
when they posed. Additionally she wanted to shoot and print within a few
minutes.

The TV people do it, or did it, for the weather reports. They presented
a map that they could not see, was added by postprocess, but real time.
A video camera with a monitor in front of the subject would show the
final result.

they can see the map and whatever else. otherwise they wouldn't know
where to move their hands to point out stuff.

No, they don't.

yes they most certainly do. you've clearly never been in a tv studio.
you can even see them glancing at one of the monitors every so often.

They most clearly don't. They did a documentary of how they did it. You
clearly haven't lived in Here.

--
Cheers, Carlos.

In article , Carlos E.R.
wrote:

The TV people do it, or did it, for the weather reports. They presented
a map that they could not see, was added by postprocess, but real time.
A video camera with a monitor in front of the subject would show the
final result.

they can see the map and whatever else. otherwise they wouldn't know
where to move their hands to point out stuff.

No, they don't.

yes they most certainly do. you've clearly never been in a tv studio.
you can even see them glancing at one of the monitors every so often.

They most clearly don't.

yes they most clearly do. watch the performer's eyes closely.

better yet, go visit a studio and see how it actually is done.

They did a documentary of how they did it.

who is 'they' ? and why does this mythical documentary, which you
refuse to name, represent how every single tv station on the entire
planet does it?

You
clearly haven't lived in Here.

so what?

what goes on in your country is not representative of the rest of the
world, and from what you've said in other posts, it's an incredibly
backwards country, stuck in the technological dark ages.