Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!shelby!portia!forel!karish From: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Newsgroups: comp.org.usenix Subject: Re: First impressions Summary: Slides aren't that hard to do Message-ID: <3356@portia.Stanford.EDU> Date: 6 Jul 89 14:38:22 GMT References: <444@warlock.UUCP> <11753@ulysses.homer.nj.att.com> <15901@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> Sender: USENET News System Reply-To: karish@forel.stanford.edu (Chuck Karish) Organization: Mindcraft, Inc. Lines: 34 In article <15901@vail.ICO.ISC.COM> rcd@ico.ISC.COM (Dick Dunn) wrote: >But let's not be too quick to say everyone should be >using slides--there are some compelling reasons to use transparencies for >an overhead projector: > - It takes skilled people and special equipment to produce good > slides. Many smaller organizations don't have it. Good overhead > transparencies can be produced on a < $4k laser printer on a PC. Add a copy stand ($100-200), a camera ($250), and an orange filter ($15) and you can make blue slides from anything that would go onto an overhead transparency. It's just not that difficult. Use Vericolor film, at about 4 ISO. In my experience, it's easier to make sharp-looking slides than really good overheads. Especially so if the presentation includes photographs. Slide projectors generally do a better job of filling a big screen with an undistorted image. > - When you're answering a question about "that slide about work- > stations promoting Ferrari ownership" you can go back to it > directly (by calling for the overhead) instead of subjecting a > thousand people to the dizzying process of cycling backward > through two dozen slides in an automatic changer. Due more to incompetent A/V help than to a deficiency in the medium. If the speaker knows which slide (s)he wants, the projectionist should be able to select it immediately, without cycling through the others. Chuck Karish {decwrl,hpda}!mindcrf!karish (415) 493-7277 karish@forel.stanford.edu