Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mike Yates]

I am new to projection but have researched it heavily for the last few months...I think I've finally put together what were looking for.  I am posting to see if anyone has any suggestions or comments on this system before I bite the bullet and have it installed.

My original intent was to go 16:9 folks said material for 16:9 was not as plentiful as the 4:3 material...so I kinda got stuck on the 4:3 while researching and put out for bids.  But the more research I did it became apparent that there was enough material out there and 16:9 was the way to go.  I couldn't find any suitable projectors until the EIKI LC-4W was recommended by a consultant.  The projector will mount from the ceiling about 23' from the 16' screen (can't long throw).  Here's the system:

COST: $23,000 (installed)

EQUIPMENT:

EIKI LC-4W 4,700lum Projector http://www.projectorcentral.com/EIKI-LC-W4.htm
EIKI AH-32501 Short Throw Lens Power Zoom & Focus 1.42" ~ 1.97"
Kramer VP-724xl Switcher/ Scaler
Extron DVI Extender
Da-Lite 106" x 188" Cosmo Electrol Screen w/RF remote

COMPUTER:

(computer is about $2,800 of the system cost w/the monitors)
Power Supply: Thermaltake 550W
Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz (1066MHz Front Side Bus) (4MB Cache) (Conroe)
Motherboard: Asus P5B (Chipset: Intel P965)
Memory: 2GB DDR2 Super Talent at 1066MHz (Dual Chan.) (Extreme-Performance)
Hard Drive 1: Western Digital 320GB (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA II)
Hard Drive 2: Western Digital 320GB (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA II)
Raid Option: Setup my two hard drives in a Raid 0 Stripe
Optical Drive 1: Lite-On CD-R/RW/DVD-ROM (CD Writer 52x / DVD Reader 16x Combo) (Includes Nero)
Network Card: High Speed Network Port (Supports High-Speed Cable / DSL / Network Connections)
Video Card: nVidia GeForce 7900GT 256MB (By: Asus) (PCI-Express)
Sound Card: Motherboard Multi-Channel High Definition Audio (7.1 Channel)
Cooling: Air Cooling (Blizzard Extreme Heat-sink and Fan (Stage 2 Cooling)
Windows OS: Microsoft Windows XP Media Center 2005
2-ViewSonic VX2235wm 22-inch LCD Monitors    http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=SEARCH& amp; amp; amp;    amp;Ntt=VX2235&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=    VX2235&Ntk=All&product_code=341696&Pn=VX2235wm_2 2_inch_LCD_Multimedia_Monitor

Here's a picture of our Sanctuary approximating a 16' 16:9 screen from farthest seat (90'):

Here are some pictures of our sanctuary:     http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/tootallll/slideshow2?.dir=/51f 9&.src=ph&.beg=0&.spd=2

All comments appreciated!

Thanks!
TT

[Brad Weber]

16:9 video is still not that common unless you are showing movies or HD programming, but it probably will become more common as DTV and HDTV become more prevalent.  15:9 or 16:9 computer graphics are also becoming much more common, especially WXGA laptops.

I do not want to be double guessing what you've done, but have some comments to consider.  None of these are hard and fast rules, just some commonly overlooked issues to consider.

The "furthest viewer" is usually from one back corner to the furthest point on the screen, not from the center back of the room to the center of the screen.  If it is 90' from the screen to someone seated in the middle of the back pew then it may be over 100' for the furthest viewer (far edge of screen to opposite rear corner of congregation).

At 90', rule of thumb would suggest a 15' high image (180"x320") with a 135"x240" as a sort of a lower limit, thus  106"x188" seems a little small based on "standard" criteria.  You can overcome this by using large text, etc., but it may make using canned material more difficult.  Going to a 180"x320" screen and around a 15,000 lumen projector it likely would require will certainly significantly increase the costs, so I can see why that might not be practical!

FWIW, projector manufacturers often OEM models from one another and you might want to look at the Sanyo PLV-WF10 as that appears to be what the Eiki really is (exact same LCD panels, contrast, size, weight, power, heat, etc.).  Also be aware that based on Sanyo's specs and some comments from Eiki regarding light output with short throw lenses, in your application this is more like a 4000 lumen projector than 4700 lumens.  So for the 106"x188" image you identified (and based on a screen surface as discussed below) the projector output appears borderline, I would normally look at about a 5000 lumen projector as a minimum.  The Eiki you have noted is close and in many applications might be just fine, but it looks as though where your screen might be located combined with the screen size and the room lighting might make it hard to keep ambient light off the screen.  Unless you can dramatically dim or turn off the center lights during any projection you may want to consider a brighter projector in order to minimize having a washed out image.  I often look at the Panasonic PT-DW7000U/U-K for this size screen, but there are others.

On a related note, you did not identify the screen surface.  This is a major consideration.  Your sanctuary appears to not be overly wide so a wide angle viewing surface is probably not required.  While a high gain screen might increase image brightness, it will also increase the effect of any ambient light on the screen.  Unless you can control the ambient and room lighting on the projection screen, you might want to consider at a high contrast screen surface.

Look carefully at any short throw lenses.  They often limit the image shift and other optical deviations allowed as well as sometimes slightly reducing light output compared to the standard lens used for the projector rating.  Not necessarily a problem, just something to be aware of.

Think carefully about how you are going to hang the projector and screen, it looks like working around the light fixtures and attaching to solid structure may be a bit of a challenge.  Also keep in mind that with both hung so far down any vibration in the structure or air movement hitting the screen will likely result in a much amplified movement in the image.  And start thinking about how you get power to both the screen and projector and cabling to the projector.

Finally, is the DVI extender because the computer is away from where the Kramer scaler/switcher will be?  I'm not quite sure how you envisioned running two monitors and a feed to the switcher/scaler off one video card if that is what you plan, but given that you are going to be scaling the image and running RGBHV from the switcher/scaler to the projector anyways, you may want to consider using a VGA output of the computer to the Kramer and the DVI output for a local monitor.  

That should be enough to consider for now!

[Mike Yates]

Thanks Brad!

Great comments...I am going 16:9 because it appears there is enough technology and images available to make it viable in our application.  We are a small church and although $20k is probably not a huge sum to most larger organizations it is huge for us.  I would like to not have to think about dropping another $20k in five years to go 16:9 because the material put out at that time is 16:9.  I'm trying to be a good steward of what resources God has blessed us with and it seems difficult because of ever changing technology.  I've gone back and forth in considering 4:3 and 16:9 and my head is spinning.  So, I finally decided not to worry about the availability of 16:9 material right now, and any 4:3 material we use I guess can be configured to use on the 16:9 projector.

After I posted several others have mentioned a larger screen would be more appropriate...just not sure if I can put together a screen/projector combination that will provide the needed screen size increase and still remain within our budget.  Several others also suggested as you that the sanyo manufactures the Eiki model I was looking at in the WF10 and could be $1k cheaper.

As far as the extender...it was recomended to run the VGA from the projector into the extender, and cat5 from extender to switcher (about 175').  The computer and Switcher will be located next to each other.

I'm a sound dude who's getting into projection so connection of video equipment is beyond my scope of abilities and was hoping to receive advice such as yours.  I have read of VGA port splitters...could one of those be utilized by splitting the projector monitor and the projector out of one VGA port?  I could add a second nVidia 7900gt with two more outs if needed but if a splitter would work at a lower cost then I will probably do that.  

Depending on the cost of final equipment we might be installing our new projection equipment.  I am somewhat confused on how to hook up all the components. Does anyone know of a link to a thorough exlanation on how to connect/set-up/calibrate projection system components, i.e., projector/computer/scaler/audio mixing console?

Thanks for the input!

Blessings!
TT

[Mike Yates]

Brad Weber wrote on Wed, 27 September 2006 22:16

Look carefully at any short throw lenses.  They often limit the image shift and other optical deviations allowed as well as sometimes slightly reducing light output compared to the standard lens used for the projector rating.  Not necessarily a problem, just something to be aware of.

...is the same true for long throw lenses?

[Brad Weber]

Mike Yates wrote on Mon, 02 October 2006 13:01

...is the same true for long throw lenses?

In some cases, it does vary from lens to lens.  Typically the medium throw lenses offer the most flexibility and light output, this is why they are what the projectors are tested and rated with, while the very short throw lenses (<1.0:1) intended for rear projection often have to be on the centerline at a fixed location for the image size.

Look at sites like Extron for lots of general information on using DAs, scaler/switchers, etc.  There are numerous educational and application oriented documents and many of the product manuals have  graphic hookup diagrams, even if what you have differs in the details the general concepts will be the same.  Keep in mind that as far as AV presentation most churches are much like an auditorium or large classroom, often applications documents related to those will also apply to churches.

Calibrating is a whole different issue, to do it right takes having the proper equipment although many of the adjustments can be ballparked by eye with some readily available test DVDs.  Check out the Imaging Science Foundation (ISF) for info, they are sort of the reference for projection calibration.

Extron and others have some relatively inexpensive 1x2 VGA DAs made to provide a local monitor feed and a second signal feed such as for going to your switcher/scaler, Extron's model is the P/2 DA2 (there are several versions).

[Brian Kent Tennyson]

Brad, I'm going to disagree with you on the screen height for the sanctuary. The 1/6th rule applies well to business setting where 12pt text is common, but in a church setting you are typically viewing video or 40pt text on a presentation software.

I would say if you have good eye site, put up some text on a 20" monitor and stand 6' then 10' away and see how readable your presentation text is. These distance from your monitor will be fairly good approximations of 1/6th vs. 1/10 height to distance ratios.

Personally I would go with a 9' x 16' screen. High contrast surface for good light rejection, plus you have a narrow enough room.

Your foot candles per sq. ft. of screen need to be figure by the amount of foot candles you will have hitting the vertical surface of the screens. From your pics I'm going to say you have a lot, like 25 to 35, so lets say 30. Your projector for Power Point should produce a contrast  ratio of 10:1.  At 30fc of ambient that would mean you would need around 300fc per sf. So you need a 43,200 ANSI Lumen PROJECTOR !!!!!! So get the light down  3 to 4 fc if your going to use a 5000 ANSI lumen projector.

Remember that DLPs cost more but they have higher contrast, so you are getting higher perceived brightness. Look at Christe, Digital Projection and Barco for DLP, avoid Eiki. For LCD I would look at Panasonic for wide format, or Mitsubishi.

Good luck,

PS your contarst ratio for video should be 2.5:1 so you may want to turn the lights out for video.

[Brad Weber]

I don't at all take that as "disagreeing", rather it just highlights the point that one of the major factors in determining the appropriate screen size is what is being displayed.

The 1/6 the distance to the furthest viewer is indeed the "rule of thumb" for standard computer presentation, 1/8 for video, etc.  I agree that if it is only large point text presentations then the screen can be much smaller.  However ,I find many churches using their presentation systems for things other than normal services.  If you might find yourself having special presentations or presentations with subtitles or anything like that then you might want to consider a larger screen.  If not and you'll be able to control the text size and fonts used, then a smaller screen is defintiely feasible.

I also agree that the effect of ambient light is often overlooked, especially when adding screens to an existing space.  The SMPTE standards for light levels off the screen are for cinemas where the rooms are dark and there is a high level of light control, but that's not a typical environment for most facilities so you have to account for the difference, which can indeed require a much brighter projector.

[Tim Urner]

I think your screen size is a little on the big side. I would back off to at least a 14 if not a 12. People will be able to see a 12 or 14 fine. (put away the slide rules, real world here)

Reason being I would say the screen size/projector brightness is a little off. You either need a higher output projector or a smaller screen. I would suggest bumping up to a 5000 or 6000 Lumen if you stay that large. With ambient light I don't think the 4700 will cut it.

Someone mentioned Digital Proj, Barco and Christie. They make great products, but hold onto your pocket books for a 16:9. Only your budget can make that determination.

I think the price quoted is reasonable, if that link was to an accurate Eiki Price. I would look to bump up the proj or down the screen a notch or 2.

16:9 big projectors are not the main stream yet and you are going to pay for it. For example a Mitsu. XL5980 5500 lumen is around 8K and the Eiki specd is 13K without the lens

[Brian Kent Tennyson]

Tim Urner wrote on Thu, 28 June 2007 23:44

(put away the slide rules, real world here)

Yeah, your right. Just guess, that always works well.

(Yes, that was sarcasm.)

There is NO substitute for carefully planning and time tested formulas.

[Brad Weber]

Aren't these pretty much the very same points that had already been noted in the previous posts 9 months earlier?

[Tim Urner]

Brian Kent Tennyson wrote on Sun, 01 July 2007 20:14

Tim Urner wrote on Thu, 28 June 2007 23:44 (put away the slide rules, real world here) Yeah, your right. Just guess, that always works well. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) There is NO substitute for carefully planning and time tested formulas.

I will take it as sarcasm, OK don't guess - tour other facilities and see what a 8, 10, or 12' screen looks like. You may just be able to save a few dollars. (The obvious thing is that the projector/screen combo suggested seems like undesirable image quality will happen) Since a brighter 16:9 will cost more...

Or just ask to borrow some money from Brian's church

[Brad Weber]

Tim Urner wrote on Mon, 02 July 2007 20:57

I will take it as sarcasm, OK don't guess - tour other facilities and see what a 8, 10, or 12' screen looks like. You may just be able to save a few dollars.

Quote:

I think your screen size is a little on the big side. I would back off to at least a 14 if not a 12. People will be able to see a 12 or 14 fine. (put away the slide rules, real world here)

Both of these seem a bit presumptuous without addressing what it is that is being projected.  As was discussed earlier, for projecting something like EasyWorship/MediaShout or basic I-Mag, you might get away with an even smaller screen than a 12' or 14' high screen, which would save even more.  But if you need to project standard 12pt font text and have to serve all the seats, then even a 15' high image might be a minimum.

Speaking of seats, you often also need to consider the attendance.  If the vast majority of services only fill 3/4 of the seating, then you may not worry as much about the back 1/4 or those off to the extreme sides in a fan shaped room.

So using the math is appropriate, but you do first have to determine what it is you are really trying to achieve.  Without doing that, anything is pure speculation and guesses.

[Tim Urner]

Brad Weber wrote on Mon, 02 July 2007 22:57

Tim Urner wrote on Mon, 02 July 2007 20:57 I will take it as sarcasm, OK don't guess - tour other facilities and see what a 8, 10, or 12' screen looks like. You may just be able to save a few dollars. Quote: I think your screen size is a little on the big side. I would back off to at least a 14 if not a 12. People will be able to see a 12 or 14 fine. (put away the slide rules, real world here) Both of these seem a bit presumptuous without addressing what it is that is being projected.  As was discussed earlier, for projecting something like EasyWorship/MediaShout or basic I-Mag, you might get away with an even smaller screen than a 12' or 14' high screen, which would save even more.  But if you need to project standard 12pt font text and have to serve all the seats, then even a 15' high image might be a minimum. Speaking of seats, you often also need to consider the attendance.  If the vast majority of services only fill 3/4 of the seating, then you may not worry as much about the back 1/4 or those off to the extreme sides in a fan shaped room. So using the math is appropriate, but you do first have to determine what it is you are really trying to achieve.  Without doing that, anything is pure speculation and guesses.

This is obviously for those who have been late to the party as I was. I think the concepts are the same and timeless.

Brad,
I was being presumptuous, after all this is a church AV site not a boardroom or school site. About 90% of churches that I know use their screens for worship support 95% of the time, lyrics, videos and scriptures.  The original poster stated that there was some budgetary reasons. That being the case don't overlook the 3000 lb elephant in the room. Screen/Proj/room combo was wrong, design had to be modified. We can spend all day with our slide rules saying that they need a huge screen but at the end of the day the budget is the budget. What 6000 lumen 16:9 projector would you use that would not blow the budget?

[Mike Yates]

Well...been awhile...thanks Tim for your response...of course there is no one solution when developing an a/v system as many factors are considered, and compromises are made as priorities are set.  I researched for six months before I finally purchased and installed our system.  Being an old sound dude and not knowing anything about projection I posted many questions on several different forums and researched specification and equipment heavily.  

Tim emailed me and asked about final results so I thought I'd post  this link to a post I made on another forum with those results.                   http://www.churchmedia.net/CMN/projection-systems/29265-than k-you-cmn-community.html

I forget which formula I used to figure out how big a screen I needed but the furthest seat from the screen is 100' and we installed a 12' x 16' screen.  Someone made a comment in one of my posts on another forum to go as big as you can afford and responses I received regarding screen size included similar sentiments.  I could not have been happier with the screen size we selected.

There were a couple things that saved some budget...by the time we were ready to purchase I had learned enough about projection to do the install myself, which I used to upgrade equipment...mostly the projector, and we switched to a 4:3 format...together this saved about 25% of our budget.  The 16:9 system would have required at least a 21' x 10' screen...between the screen and projector we would have blown way past our budget.  Brad calculated I needed about 9,000 lumens to project properly with the amount of ambient light so the extra savings was used wisely to upgrade the projector.  I am glad I did as there is a bright crisp picture even with all lights on during mid day lighting conditions in the sanctuary.

My current endeavor entails researching computers and software for video and image editing.  I'm leaning towards purchasing the Adobe Creative Suite 3 Production Premium software for creating multimedia...yikes...now there's a learning curve for me!

The whole system turned out AWESOME...thanks to everyone here who helped!

[Brad Weber]

Glad to hear it all worked out so well!

The 16:9 format issue is one that many people struggle with.  Unless 16:9 images are a common source (something that is actually happening more with WXGA and above laptops becoming prevalent), then going with a larger 4:3 screen can be a good option to address both formats as a 4:3 screen can support 16:9 video via letterboxing.  If you do the calculations, a 4:3 screen sized for 1/6 the viewing distance provides a letterboxed 16:9 image height that is 1/8 the viewing distance, right on the recommended ratios for computer and video media viewing.  However, if you minimize the 4:3 screen to start with, say 1/10 the furthest viewer, then letterboxing 16:9 images may not be a practical option.  So if you're not sure about format, using a larger 4:3 screen and letterboxing any 16:9 images is one possible approach.

[Karl P(eterson)]

Mike Yates wrote on Tue, 03 July 2007 03:48

My current endeavor entails researching computers and software for video and image editing.  I'm leaning towards purchasing the Adobe Creative Suite 3 Production Premium software for creating multimedia...yikes...now there's a learning curve for me!

We have editors on final cut, premier pro, and vegas all with pretty good success.

Personally though I think Final Cut Express on a 20" iMac /w 2 gig of memory is about the perfect pro-video-light package.

For what its worth.

Karl P

[Mike Yates]

Brad Weber wrote on Tue, 03 July 2007 11:36

Glad to hear it all worked out so well! The 16:9 format issue is one that many people struggle with.  Unless 16:9 images are a common source (something that is actually happening more with WXGA and above laptops becoming prevalent), then going with a larger 4:3 screen can be a good option to address both formats as a 4:3 screen can support 16:9 video via letterboxing.

Having the ability to show both formats factored heavily in finally choosing the 4:3 format...16:9 material shows great and 4:3 stuff is huge and makes for a powerful presentation...definitely perfect for our church at this point.  Perhaps when I become better at creating our own material material for our services we will consider going all 16:9...I really like the wide format...and maybe in a few years the HD projectors will come down in price enough so a smaller church like ours can afford it.

Karl P(eterson) wrote on Tue, 03 July 2007 16:05

We have editors on final cut, premier pro, and vegas all with pretty good success. Personally though I think Final Cut Express on a 20" iMac /w 2 gig of memory is about the perfect pro-video-light package. For what its worth. Karl P

Thanks Karl!  I'm glad someone posted about their preference on video editing.  I'm still researching which way to go, PC or Mac, and which editing software to use.  I have worked for a large newspaper for 22 years and I know they have only used Macs in their pre-production and design departments since I've been there, and Macs have been the industry standard for many years.    I'm just a little hesitant to jump into new operating systems since I'm already climbing a steep learning curve with the editing software...but I still want to make the best choice and if Mac is it then I'll do it.

Of note in the research I have done so far is that PC's have made great strides and gained momentum in this area over the last few years and I don't know that it is as clear cut as it used to be.

[Karl P(eterson)]

Mike Yates wrote on Tue, 03 July 2007 18:20

Thanks Karl!  I'm glad someone posted about their preference on video editing.  I'm still researching which way to go, PC or Mac, and which editing software to use.  I have worked for a large newspaper for 22 years and I know they have only used Macs in their pre-production and design departments since I've been there, and Macs have been the industry standard for many years.    I'm just a little hesitant to jump into new operating systems since I'm already climbing a steep learning curve with the editing software...but I still want to make the best choice and if Mac is it then I'll do it. Of note in the research I have done so far is that PC's have made great strides and gained momentum in this area over the last few years and I don't know that it is as clear cut as it used to be.

While it is true that PC's have come a long way in the past few years for editing (thanks in large part to vegas and premier pro), there is still a platform-stability difference that is hard to overcome.

What I mean by this is our premier pro and vegas installations are running on top of x86 workstations (XP Pro) and our final cut systems are on a collection of iMac's, MacBookPro's and MacPro's.

We find that on average, our editors working on the PC's get stuff done about 10% faster, but everyone agrees the quality coming out of Final Cut is superior to anything (except perhaps Avid, but we don't use it currently) on the windows side. Why that is no-one can say exactly, but if we create the same video on the two platforms, the final cut edited file just looks better - of course YMMV.

Where we do have problems is the long term stability of our PC's. Most of our macs we never have to touch "They Just Work", not to say they are perfect, but by and large they treat us well. Our XP machines on the other hand are a completely different matter. After 6 to 7 months they just start to crawl and while you can generally nurse them another month or two, after that its time to clean them off, reformat them and build them back up.

Of course my opinions here are just that, but they are based on some amount of experience.

Hope this helps!

Karl P

[Mike Yates]

Karl P(eterson) wrote on Wed, 04 July 2007 00:20

...Where we do have problems is the long term stability of our PC's. Most of our macs we never have to touch "They Just Work", not to say they are perfect, but by and large they treat us well. Our XP machines on the other hand are a completely different matter. After 6 to 7 months they just start to crawl and while you can generally nurse them another month or two, after that its time to clean them off, reformat them and build them back up. Of course my opinions here are just that, but they are based on some amount of experience. Hope this helps! Karl P

That's interesting...since I have never used a Mac I did not know this, and I do understand what you mean by PC's slowing to a crawl.  I've noticed it on my home computers and our office computers, and your right on about the length of time it takes to slow.  These PC's are used mostly for generating documents and surfing the net and I delete cookies and files at least once a week.  We purchased a higer end new PC for our church projection system...it worked flawlessly for about six months then it started slowing and we started having problems with programs like Easy Worship and Powerpoint not working together properly.  

What's frustrating is I am not a computer whiz but I do know a fair bit about PC's as I have been using them for the last 25 years, and I can't get the programs to play well together like they first did when the computer was new...guess I'll probably uninstall/reinstall the apps first and if that doesn't work I'll look into doing as you do and clean the drives and rebuild them.  

I often wondered if this problem occurs because of the amount of spyware that is out there while surfing on the net.  I think most spyware programs are written to infect PC's not Mac's and I do know from experience spyware will slow a PC considerably and some programs are very hard to detect and erase because they make registry changes...this might be why your PC's work better after you reformat/rebuild them as you are clearing/resetting the registry entries...just a thought...

[Stephen Maloney]

Mike Yates wrote on Wed, 04 July 2007 19:32

That's interesting...since I have never used a Mac I did not know this, and I do understand what you mean by PC's slowing to a crawl.  I've noticed it on my home computers and our office computers, and your right on about the length of time it takes to slow.  These PC's are used mostly for generating documents and surfing the net and I delete cookies and files at least once a week.  We purchased a higer end new PC for our church projection system...it worked flawlessly for about six months then it started slowing and we started having problems with programs like Easy Worship and Powerpoint not working together properly.   What's frustrating is I am not a computer whiz but I do know a fair bit about PC's as I have been using them for the last 25 years, and I can't get the programs to play well together like they first did when the computer was new...guess I'll probably uninstall/reinstall the apps first and if that doesn't work I'll look into doing as you do and clean the drives and rebuild them.   I often wondered if this problem occurs because of the amount of spyware that is out there while surfing on the net.  I think most spyware programs are written to infect PC's not Mac's and I do know from experience spyware will slow a PC considerably and some programs are very hard to detect and erase because they make registry changes...this might be why your PC's work better after you reformat/rebuild them as you are clearing/resetting the registry entries...just a thought...

I agree that on average Macs are more stable than PC's, but generally i find that this is mostly true for average users who do not know much about computers and want them to "just work", in my experience these are also the people who don't understand that wireless networks need/or can be encrypted or that regular maintenance is required for a car to run. This is the market that Macs were designed for. For configurable and power for a lower cost PC's are the go. You just need to spend a little bit more time and love on them optimizing an maintaining it.

There are a lot of simple things you can do to delay (or get rid of) the slowdown mentioned by other posters. One thing that i do to simplify this process at my church is that i use something called a restore card, it's a pci card http://www.amtsoftware.com/Rebounce-Recovery-Card/ or saw one on eBay for $8, so basically you do a fresh install, put everything you want onto the computer, configure programs then set the restore card. Now no matter what anyone else installs/modifies/spy-ware once you reboot the computer it is restored to the exact point after your first installation so no spyware, good as new, most can also be set to restore on command and you can always store all video editing stuff on another drive so it doesn't get "restored" I think you can also do this with norton ghost or other software like that...

Other things you can do if you do not like this path is to just get registry cleaners/anti-spyware/virus scanners and also a good defragger then schedule them to run once a month or so at night when nobody needs the computer.

Or you could just get a Mac... but they get cluttered eventually all the same.  
 

[Arnold B. Krueger]

Mike Yates wrote on Wed, 27 September 2006 16:23

I am new to projection but have researched it heavily for the last few months...I think I've finally put together what were looking for.  I am posting to see if anyone has any suggestions or comments on this system before I bite the bullet and have it installed. COMPUTER: (computer is about $2,800 of the system cost w/the monitors) Power Supply: Thermaltake 550W Processor: Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 2.4GHz (1066MHz Front Side Bus) (4MB Cache) (Conroe) Motherboard: Asus P5B (Chipset: Intel P965) Memory: 2GB DDR2 Super Talent at 1066MHz (Dual Chan.) (Extreme-Performance) Hard Drive 1: Western Digital 320GB (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA II) Hard Drive 2: Western Digital 320GB (16MB Cache) (7200 RPM) (SATA II) Raid Option: Setup my two hard drives in a Raid 0 Stripe Optical Drive 1: Lite-On CD-R/RW/DVD-ROM (CD Writer 52x / DVD Reader 16x Combo) (Includes Nero) Network Card: High Speed Network Port (Supports High-Speed Cable / DSL / Network Connections) Video Card: nVidia GeForce 7900GT 256MB (By: Asus) (PCI-Express) Sound Card: Motherboard Multi-Channel High Definition Audio (7.1 Channel) Cooling: Air Cooling (Blizzard Extreme Heat-sink and Fan (Stage 2 Cooling) Windows OS: Microsoft Windows XP Media Center 2005 2-ViewSonic VX2235wm 22-inch LCD Monitors     http://www.compusa.com/products/product_info.asp?pfp=SEARCH& amp; amp; amp; amp;     amp;Ntt=VX2235&N=0&Dx=mode+matchall&Nty=1&D=     VX2235&Ntk=All&product_code=341696&Pn=VX2235wm_2 2_inch_LCD_Multimedia_Monitor

I couldn't believe the bottom line on this computer system, even including 2 LCD Monitors. $2800! That's like twice too much.

First off, I'll even question having 2 LCDs. I do get having dual displays, but unless the main screen is too small and too far away, I'm used to using it as my second monitor. But if your other hardware or software wants a second LCD, go with the flow. This is only $250 of the $1200 or more excess costs.

Secondly, the choice of LCD monitors is questionable. For the same price or less, one can obtain 24 inch monitors whose screen layout is 1920 x 1280. This is just over 1080 lines, instead of just under. It seems to me that accurate representation of 1080p is a reasonable goal. I just picked up a 24" Soyo LCD for $249 at Office Depot, and it has 1000:1 contrast and is very bright with great color.

Thirdly, the graphics card is vast overkill. Presentation graphics is a 2D world. The proposed card is a gamester's dream at $100 or more than a lower end card that will work just fine for presentation graphics.

Ditto for spending the big bucks on the latest-greatest CPU.  If you sacrifice 20% or so of the speed of a SOTA processer, you'll save $100s, and rarely if ever notice the difference, even for editing. Running presentation software will all the bells and whistles only takes a mid-line PS.

The choice of Windows XP media center is also a complete waste for doing presentation graphics. It's even said to be detrimental for video by some people who use PCs for professional work. XP media center is basically XP with MS's version of the pretty much the same TV/DVR software that comes with just about every TV card that isn't specially packaged without software for use with XP media center. IOW XP Pro (or maybe even Home) with a $79 NTSC or HDTV receiver/capture card is functionally equal or better. How better? Well for one thing Windows Media Center captures video in a file format that requires conversion before it is useful with most video editing software. In contrast the software that comes with ATI or ADS TV cards saves its files as MPEG, and burns DVDs that will play in just about any standard DVD player.

BTW you don't need any TV card in most cases. You do need to play DVDs which you can't do with XP all by itself, but just about any DVD-ROM or DVD-RW comes with one of the software DVD players like PowerDVD, and that gives you all you need.

As far as PC's slowing down with use, the cause of this is simply people being unable to keep on installing junk software, because there is simply so much attractive stuff out there. I've proven to myself over and over again that if you take an XP machine, load it up with some presentation and editing software and keep it isolated from the internet and the tempting world of downloads and installs of fun but not-mission-related software, and avoid filling the hard drive with videos, it will run at the same speed for years.

As far as Macs versus PCs for editing, its really all about the software that people are comfortable with. I have not seen anything that can be done with Final Cut that can't be done with Premiere Elements which costs only a fraction. However, if you're used to Final Cut's workflow, you just might find Premier's workflow to be like working in a straight jacket until you adjust to it, which might take forever if you aren't happy with the change.

The *gigawatt* power supply and ultra-silent fan are also overkill. It's true that OEM heatsink/fan assemblies can be improved on, but 90% improvement can be obtained with a $20 aftermarket HS/Fan. A good 350 watt commodity power supply has all the power you need. If I put a VA meter on just about any PC, its actual power usage is around 100 watts.

Bottom line, Maximum PC is a cool magazine, but the the average church is wasting God's money on their new presentation computer if they try to configure it from the latest issue.

[ProSoundWeb Community]