• Products
    • Isadora
    • Get It
    • ADD-ONS
    • IzzyCast
    • Get It
  • Forum
  • Help
  • Werkstatt
  • Newsletter
  • Impressum
  • Dsgvo
  • Press
  • Isadora
  • Get It
  • ADD-ONS
  • IzzyCast
  • Get It
  • Press
  • Dsgvo
  • Impressum

Navigation

    • Register
    • Login
    • Search
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Tags

    Projector corner adjust versus Isadora

    How To... ?
    5
    6
    295
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • R
      Reload2024 last edited by

      Just wondering from a performance and video quality perspective, whether its better to use the projectors corner adjustment, or to clear all the keystone settings and use Isadora's calibration tool instead? Or does it matter?

      Juriaan Woland D 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • Juriaan
        Juriaan Tech Staff @Reload2024 last edited by

        @reload2024

        What do you mean with calibration tool, do you mean IzzyMap? Double clicking the projector basically?

        Isadora 3.1.1, Dell XPS 17 9710, Windows 10
        Interactive Performance Designer, Freelance Artist, Scenographer, Lighting Designer, TroikaTronix Community moderator
        Always in for chatting about interaction in space / performance design. Drop me an email at hello@juriaan.me

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • Woland
          Woland Tech Staff @Reload2024 last edited by

          @reload2024 said:

          Or does it matter?

           My gut instinct is that performance-wise there'd be very little difference in terms of how hard your computer needs to work using the physical beamer's keystoning vs using the keystoning in Isadora (keystone actors, IzzyMap, Stage Setup, etc.) but that's just a guess. The only thing I can think of is that doing the keystoning using the physical beamer's settings should theoretically be slightly more efficient because that "work" is being done by the projector and not your computer, but again, I'd be surprised if you compared the two methods and found any meaningful difference in terms of efficiency (though I could be wrong).

          Personally I'd lean towards doing it in Isadora since it's more convenient to be able to all the keystoning for all my physical beamer's from one place instead of needing to use remotes for all of them, or a different browser tab (for projectors with browser-based controllers), or use PJLink, ArtNet, or some other kind of commands over a network. I'd also prefer to be able to see what I'm doing and have more individual control over each corner, both of which you can find in Isadora and are less likely to be able to do with the physical beamer's settings.

          TroikaTronix Technical Support
          New Support Ticket: https://support.troikatronix.com/support/tickets/new
          Support Policy: https://support.troikatronix.com/support/solutions/articles/13000064762
          Add-Ons: https://troikatronix.com/add-ons/ & https://troikatronix.com/add-ons/?u=woland
          Professional Services: https://support.troikatronix.com/support/solutions/articles/13000109444

          | Isadora Version: all of them | Mac Pro (Late 2013), macOS 10.14.6, 3.5GHz 6-core, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, Dual AMD FirePro D700s |

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • CitizenJoe
            CitizenJoe last edited by

            I like to get it as close as I can on the physical projector and then fine-tune it in Isadora. I think this is a personal hangover from the days when it actually did make a difference. Also, though, when you're using a lot of outputs I can see that the cumulative load might be significant?

            Cheers,

            Hugh

            Hugh in Winnipeg - All test machines, Win10/11 Pro, 64 bit, OS SSD and separate data SSD.
            Dell 7560, i9 11950H, 64 gigs, NVIDIA RTX A4000 w/8 GB GDDR6

            Woland 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
            • Woland
              Woland Tech Staff @CitizenJoe last edited by

              @citizenjoe said:

              get it as close as I can on the physical projector and then fine-tune it in Isadora

              Yes, now that I think about it, that's what I always end up doing as well. I was thinking about it too much in terms of A vs B and which is "better" as that's how the question was framed, but the real answer is what you said: the ideal workflow is to do A first, then B.

              TroikaTronix Technical Support
              New Support Ticket: https://support.troikatronix.com/support/tickets/new
              Support Policy: https://support.troikatronix.com/support/solutions/articles/13000064762
              Add-Ons: https://troikatronix.com/add-ons/ & https://troikatronix.com/add-ons/?u=woland
              Professional Services: https://support.troikatronix.com/support/solutions/articles/13000109444

              | Isadora Version: all of them | Mac Pro (Late 2013), macOS 10.14.6, 3.5GHz 6-core, 1TB SSD, 64GB RAM, Dual AMD FirePro D700s |

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • D
                DillTheKraut @Reload2024 last edited by

                @reload2024

                Don't know if this still is true, but I had the experience with some pro grade Panasonic projectors, that the geometric functions added some latency to the stream. But I guess, this was only true for more complex corrections with the optional warping board. Anyway, for latency sensitiv setups, this might be considdered / testet.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                • First post
                  Last post