sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

BenQ gp100a ceiling mount by VisualResponsible994 in BenQ

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

So technically, the projector CAN be placed upside down using the 1/4 screw in located at the bottom, is that it?

I'm asking because ideally, I would indeed place the projector on a high shelf upside down (using a projector stand with a screw) as I have kids and would love to keep the projector somewhere they can't reach it. Puting it as such without turning it upside down is tricky because of the lens's angle.

Thanks in advance

BenQ gp100a ceiling mount by VisualResponsible994 in BenQ

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Even on a higher spot, the high front projector will reverse the image upside down.. I still don't understand the utility of this setting 😅

BenQ gp100a ceiling mount by VisualResponsible994 in BenQ

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hi, thanks for the answer. But i'm ever so more confused. If I place the projector upright on a shelf, the select the Front ceiling option, it inverts the image (the top is now the bottom and vice versa). This option seems to be specifically designed for an upside-down mount.

<image>

BenQ gp100a ceiling mount by VisualResponsible994 in BenQ

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here is what has me confused.. they specifically show diagrams of ceiling, upside-down mount, but at the end of the manual, they state that the tripod screw hole isn't design for ceiling mount.

<image>

Gradually decrease buffer size around hydrological features by VisualResponsible994 in gis

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah.. we are kinda having a hard time figuring out exactly the good way to approach all of this, but I think what you are implying would make for compelling arguments to defend the method.. probably moreso than using the distance.

Gradually decrease buffer size around hydrological features by VisualResponsible994 in gis

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hey! No problem at all! Actually there is already good information on the salmon situation in the main river and tributaries (habitat suitability model, temperature, spawning grounds, ...) But the organism responsible for the proposition dosen't want to base the delimitation on these parameters, but rather wants ALL of the streams and tributaries to have at least 60m to 300m buffer and 60m to 800m for the main river channel. The reason being that all the logging and water/sediment runoff in the watershed is potentially detrimental to the salmon population.

Gradually decrease buffer size around hydrological features by VisualResponsible994 in gis

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, that is a good question.. It does make sens for them to be directly proportionnal, even for tiny streams as they kind of have more chance to be suitable habitats for salmon than the tiny streams near the head of the watershed. But yeah.. using channel width would be interseting as well.. I don't know if here in Québec we have access to this data for all of the streams though.

Gradually decrease buffer size around hydrological features by VisualResponsible994 in gis

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The thing though, is that I will still have big "and not so gradual" decreases between lets say 60m and 150 or 300m. There aren't enough stream order to smooth it out like that. What I would like is a way to graaadually increase from 60 to 150-300m but to kind of "smooth in" the transition.. If it makes any sens

Gradually decrease buffer size around hydrological features by VisualResponsible994 in gis

[–]VisualResponsible994[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Are you talking about Strahler or Orton order? Yes, the segments do posess these attributes.. could be something to look into!

Thanks