LumenLux

surrogate father of the Beatles?

For those following along at home - The result of Powerpoint presentation at the school was one I had not dreamed of! My daughter insisted she would have no opportunity to run the show from her own computer and so she took the PP show on a little flash drive to be run on the school's PC attached to a digital projector. The Powerpoint presentation went as expected until the video, which as you may recall was now a .wmv file. The video ran fine on the pc connected to the projector - but the video was not visable in the projected image! The powerpoint slide continued in the projected image, but the video portion appeared only as a black box, ie an empty video window. I have a couple of ideas about this, but will see if someone else can explain it better by the time I wake up in the morning. It seems it may be that .wmv shows on a different "level", like the "overlay" that JPD is discussing in another topic. But it certainly surprised me that it would show on the computer screen but be simultaneously absent in the projected image.

Ok, if you buy it, I'll come down and we will do a Ghosts of Elvis show!

OK, I have now edited the original post to include this: Official site of "Super" The actual download is at bottom of the page. Thank you all, the education continues. ElIvarz, I know so little of Flash or .swf, I saved that possibility until last and did not end up using it. Thanks for pointing out the possibility. Dave, you are confirming my "fears" of the whole situation. That is the codec nightmare that seems to exist with Powerpoint (and elsewhere). You know more than I about it, but that is why I am hoping that a codec used for Microsoft's own .WMV might, just might, be more likely to be part of a pc that is running Powerpoint. (I know, this is "hope" without any knowledge support.) The more I get into the codec maze, I begin to think that codecs are the computer equivalent of DNA. And my advice for both is - Don't mess with it. (if you can avoid it!) The font issue in PTE while annoying, is much simpler in my mind. I have come to like using PTE object editor if I just need a simple text item or page. If I feel the font is critical (usually), I will take a screen shot of the slide and then use the .jpg of the screen shot. This of course is not for interaction unless I then open the new slide in object editor to add additional objects.

Thank you Sam. It pleases me especially when someone enjoys some part of what I enjoyed. Your reference to Italy and the Dolomites is interesting. There are numerous mountain scenes in Utah that certainly seem European to me. I think I could put a portfolio together that would fool 95% of the residents of my own city. On the other hand, we met a man on the mountain that day, who being retired had taken it upon himself to be caretaker of the sign-in book (log) up on the summit. He was comming down as we were going up. He makes the same hike typically five days a week! Although it was late in the season, he was intending to complete his 400th roundtrip by the end of 2005. He seemed to be very fit (surprise!)

Thanks friends - I knew you could do it. You confirmed my fears and my faith. Lt got me thinking a little further. Nickles you are exactly right. And Ken of Canada, you pointed me to so many possibilities - how could I miss? Here is an abreviated (believe it or not) itinerary. There are indeed now some freeware solutions that were pointed out as possibilities. The one I used appears to be able to convert many formats and many variations with even a choice (!) of codecs for some combinations. I was able to convert the original .mov to mp4, mpg, avi etc. But when I tried the new files in powerpoint, none of them would work as needed - even though other videos I tried in those formats would work! Sensing a codec issue, I upgraded the laptop's version of Windows Media player, hoping the upgrade might include some of the necessary codecs. The upgrade solved some problems but still did not provide all that powerpoint was willing to use. Then it occurred to me that the most likely compatible format might be Microsoft's own .wmv files. So back to the conversion software. Of all the offered output formats, the .wmv had an * still experimental Sure enough, the software would produce only an aborted try, no .wmv file. I then had to give up the fun for a while. But somewhere in my forced absence from the problem, the final puzzle piece dropped into place. I had earlier tried Windows Movie Maker (included in WinXP) but it would not read the .mov file. Now I had been able to convert the .mov to most everything else , so -- I loaded the .avi into Windows Movie Maker, saved it as .wmv. Daughter slipped it into Powerpoint and it works. My only caution at this point is that the tempermental fussiness of Powerpoint and playback pc's, may mean that the powerpoint that works on this laptop, might not work on the PC that is hooked to the school projector. Then again, maybe it will. Good night and good luck. The freeware program is named, simply, Super Official site of "Super" The actual download link is at bottom of page.

Thanks for the update Bill. I remember on earlier occasions in the forum, we determined that some "demands" were really "requests" that are mistranslated between languages. If that is not the case here, then maybe it is ok for me to recall a little history. Back in the early days of PTE we were trying to figure ways that shows larger than 5 mb could be shared with other forum users. Bill came forward with a willingness to host a few shows on his website. From there Bill has been willing to continuously upgrade and accomodate the vastly expanded audience for the shows and his service. I guarantee, anyone who knows the story, will be thanking Bill, not demanding anything. There are also some members who have seen fit to financially help to some degree. I'm sure Bill and all of us appreciate those people as well!

Decent advice lt, but this is a college assignment where the whole point is to demonstrate that you know how to use Powerpoint. So we still need further help. The only reason it is a problem is that the video clip she needs to use is .mov. I think the clip originated as a "video" from a compact still camera. Is it possible the .mov format is because the photographer processed it on his Mac computer? Maybe the original camera file was not a .mov file? In trying to make it work, I found Powerpoint would work fine with .mpg, .wmf, and .avi. Only the .mov is an obstacle. (Presumeably because .mov comes out of the Apple/Quicktime relationship vs. the Microsoft stable?)

Another way to make sure your battery lasts is to set the camera so it only takes one photo instead of 99 - - like I did! I now have a one-photo sequence titled "Haste Makes Waste". The day's weather progressed precisely as I hoped. Another good lesson to try an abreviated version of something until you are sure of what you are doing. At least Andy, you've got me thinking again of some possibilities. But as you say, some of them take an unusual committment of time to be able to have the camera safe even if it is set properly.

Trying to "help" daughter with a required Powerpoint presentation. I know very little Powerpoint. Two things I quickly observed. 1.To use a .mov (Quicktime) show in Powerpoint may require either converting the .mov to something else or having to make sure the creating and playback pc's are doctored with the same codec. 2. When I use an "object" in a powerpoint slide to call a PTE.exe show, it takes forever for powerpoint to turn the screen over to the .exe show and then a second forever for power point slide to return after the .exe show. We could certainly use help on either of the two problems, but especially with the .mov file. Has anyone experience with this? The microsoft website offers several "work arounds" but I would have more faith if I knew a trusted forum member had experience or knowlege to narrow this down to success.

Thanks for bringing your latest fun to our attention. The sequence is really quality and effective. I'm a little surprised how smooth you've been able to make it. I too had enjoyed your accomplished perfection of your earlier seasons evolution sequence - but yes that was quite a different thing as far as PTE is concerned. Are you using your time lapse technique in some of your commercial endeavors? Your cloud sequence reminded me of my last time-lapse venture which had been with Super 8 film, ala late 70's. Time lapsed the spring crocus opening and living the day. Now, with your "suggestion" my digital is clicking away in our back yard as the spring snow of yesterday yields to the blue sky of this noon. However, I did not consult the manual and did not have time to test the mode. So, I may end up with 0 frames instead of my anticipated 99. Either way, thank you for sharing your fun.

Good on ya, Harry! Not only is the surgery past but you seem to be seeing some light out there. Are you now in Houston or east Texas or Arkansas? Any photo-stories waiting for you to capture? Have to share a quick off-topic here. A close friend of mine, working a week in Houston, was also victim of a hit-and-run (I think on Old Spanish Trail.) After the accident, the police were on the scene talking to the victim and a witness who had stopped to help. The witness was describing the incident and the car that had done the "running." As the witness described the car & driver, he suddenly exlcaimed "There it is" as it passed on the nearby freeway. The police apprehended the vehicle and the elderly driver and brought him back to the scene of the crime. The driver's response: "Oh, that's what I hit. I thought I had hit a pole or a tree."

Per your experience, I just tried and found the same. It appears he may be working on it. In the meantime, here is a direct link to Thanksgiving 2004 (44 mb). You and others are welcome to download direct for now.

Thank you Jean-Pierre, you provide much helpful information. I will study it by tomorrow. Regarding below, does this relate to sound, photo quality, or PTE transition speed? (And "NB" ?) I know you are very good with testing, did you produce the Quality Table in the link? Thanks again.

Recent forum discussions have motivated me to alter a long show of mine enough to link it on Beechbrook.com as Thanksgiving 2004. As always, I welcome all comments and discussion. Meanwhile, a couple of related topics already in progress are: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4264 http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4261 Just for fun, you can also express yourself in the little poll here.

Useful discussion Gary and Ron. It begins to point out the versatility of PTE to satisfy shows with differing purposes. There are some PTE users who are very artistic and use PTE as a tool of expression. Hopefully, we all do that to some degree, but I mean for some, they seek to create a show that can fit the criteria by which it will be judged. Another wonderful use of PTE is exactly as you have done. Clearly what is best for one purpose is not always best for every purpose. I think it is nice to always have reaction of some kind from some viewer(s). No matter what my intended audience/purpose is, I may be able to learn something that will improve what I am doing. Taking as a example, Ron's distaste for the Nav bar. And he offers an idea that might be a better way in some cases. So I will want to consider that. Meanwhile, just this morning, I have posted a show on Beechbrook that may be the first time I have ever posted a show that has the nav bar available to downloaders. The show is Thanksgiving 2004 on Beechbrook.com. This show has a similar origin to your Rafting. Thanksgiving 2004 recounts a meaningful life experience that I had in Peru. My first purpose in creating the sequence was to show it to other participants of the experience. I wanted to make the show as meaningful as possible for that "audience." As a youthful photographer years ago, I learned that if I were on a Boy Scout trip in, say yellowstone, and took 95 beautiful shots of the natural beauty and 5 shots of friends fishing, or burping, or eating worms, - which ones were appreciated and enjoyed later by the participants. But now, unless the theme of my PTE sequence is Burping, I will probably expect to show the nice scenics and just maybe one boy with impressive belch being evident. But back to Peru. For my intended purpose, I expressly wanted to make sure that every participant in the original group got to see himself on the screen as an equally important element of the experience. The first showing was to the participants and we were able to watch it on a giant in-home theater with all the excessive comforts and technology. I downsized the photos to 1024x768 but did not reduce the file sizes by changing the compression. I used highest quality MP3 sound track. The prepared show was perfect and was universally enjoyed and acclaimed - by that small group. The 2nd use of the show was to make cd's for each of the participants. Not knowing each person's pc power, I made the cd version with jpg quality at 60% per Elements. Content stayed the same. Same almost 400 slides, same quality sound, but I spliced the mp3s together to reduce possibility of a sound problem for an unknowing viewer. And I added the navigation bar, so viewer could stop and recall there own personal experience or look for the detail they remember. Recently, discussion on this forum prompted me to want to share this show. The show is very long, but I could not justify my time to shorten it to the typical AV "competition" slot. Maybe at some time, I might try something like that with just photos of say Machu Pichu portion of the expedition. For now, I tried to think how this show might be worth viewing for those that might "get something out of it." To bring the show to downloadable size, I had to compromise photo quality with high compression. I reduced sound file size by 75%! Personally, I see the photo degradation more than I notice the reduced quality of the sound. I think the show includes a few photos that might be worthy of a viewer taking a closer look. Some photos really do say a lot, and require more viewing time than the sound-synced pace allows. Hence the navigation bar. Now, did you include too many similar shots of river rapids? Sure! or Maybe? Or of course not! You have the privilege of deciding. Final observation: Beyond the photo quality, beyond the presentation technique, but accomplished by all you did - Your sharing brought me enjoyment and fond memories. Memories of when I rafted for a week on the Colorado River where it is now (probably forever) buried beneath Lake Powell.

I just happen to have seen yesterday a couple of simple tutorials from one of our members: Re-sizing and batch processing in Photoshop and Elements When resizing small numbers of photos, I like the results of Elements "resize for web". I would like to know if Elements or Photoshop offer that in batch mode?

Had to hurry here to beat Ken! And I still likely did not make it. Actually, I dl'd about 6 years without any problem. Then I backed off for a few minutes. When I returned to the open window, no more zips would download for me. (Ken probably clogging all the pipes.) So I added the new 6 years to the my original Jukebox file. Works smooth as wd40. But after knowing virtually all your choices for 1956 -1965, I seem to recognize very few of the "recent" years!

I want to share a PTE show, but as it stands for home use, it uses an mp3 file of 55MB! I am willing to cut mp3 quality from 128kbps to 64kbps, but am wondering if I could do best by going to OGG file? I no longer have my original .wav file. If I convert the mp3 file to OGG, is 1, 2, or 3 best? 1. Convert my largest MP3 to chosen OGG quality. or 2. Convert my smaller size MP3 (64kbps) to chosen OGG quality? or 3. Convert my MP3 to .wav and then convert .wav to OGG? With any of the above, what quality setting should I try for the OGG if I have a real need to minimize file size so show can be posted. (I am also having to compromise .jpg to smaller sizes.)

Greetings Lin - In case it helps anyone else - After a week of non-success trying to install Flash8 Viewer, I had to download an Uninstaller from Adobe Flash8 Viewer support. Just now was able to UNinstall Flash so the Flash8 Viewer would install. Watching your latest is a little dissappointing compared to what I'm used to from your video postings. On my fastest pc (Intel 540 Pentium 4, 2.8 ghz?) on 19'' lcd monitor, the Flash8 playing is definitely compromising your supurb photography. My best try to describe is there is too much pixel movement and too much blotching. The pixel movement is present (not consistently) in still views but worse in any kind of pan or zoom. The blotching is what I call a forest scene where the detail of indivdual trees instead looks like a thumb smudge on wet ink. Maybe my disappointment is influenced by my high expectations based on the earlier tests you have invited us to view. Hope this helps.

Patrick, your comments are always welcome. Personally, when I make any PTE sequence available, the very first thing I want to know is "Can every viewer see what I saw when I created the show?" The only way I can know, is if people tell me. I learned a good lesson from Igor when PTE was just starting to make DVD output. I was having a particular problem getting the DVD feature to work always. When I told Igor about it, I was afraid he would dismiss my problem because the feature was working well for many other people. But Igor accepted that all I could do was tell him what I was experiencing. So he kept trying to determine why I was getting certain results. His great attitude encouraged me to also try to diagnose the problem and we eventually came up with most the answers. If someone tells me they can not see my show properly, I may or may not be able to "solve" that, but I certainly want to know about the problem. I've said before, and probably will say again - your ability with the english is remarkable. Of course sometimes, a non-native language can make discussions even more interesting. I thank you and every other non-english member for being willing to write english in this forum. If you were writing only in french, I would get so little benefit, it would be like trying to run a PTE show on the very first home computer I ever had. Thanks again to you and everyone else who ventures to share shows or thoughts through this forum.

Yes lt, Boxig has one program that does exactly what you suggest. Also, his MultiShowPlayer (think that is the name) is a nice "front end" that offers each viewer the option to install temporarily to the hard drive. Good work Boxig. You used to quickly meet the needs we all dream up. Now you have so many that the answers await the questions!

I'm prone to endorse what you are saying Brian. I just hope Igor (or assistants) don't become casualties. They are so good, and so dedicated - I can (worst case) fear that one of them might go insane trying to put it all together. If they can keep a healthy perspective, it will be just fine. I don't want PTE to become a software legend of the world's greatest program but the author went bonkers and could never enjoy it! When years ago, I first sought a slide show program that could handle two sounds, PTE was not yet there, but already had quality photographic presentation. I probably looked at 30+ fledgling programs. Some even then were taking "video" approaches to presenting still photos. I did not like the visual impression very well and it has taken a long time for me to really "care" whether I have pan and zoom or not. I can't tell you how many wedding videos I've watched (as spectator) that made me feel like I was riding a horizontal yoyo!

i THINK Maureen has done a great job. i THINK Severn makes a very valid point. Maybe I am quick to see Severn's point because I have personally had some wonderful "foreign" exposure and exposures. But I too did not "get around" to submitting any photos. Certainly I only commend those who submitted and those who did the job. If someone is interested in producing Volume II, I would make a renewed effort to contribute. I will also say, that even with a wider base of human stars, it still won't be easy to convey desire and motivation for peace. But not everyone is willing to vote just for "easy", so if there is a "taker" or a "leader" ready to go - I think there could be further benefit on this course. May as well say too - That there could have been many approaches but I'm doubtful any could have been decidedly better than what Maureen did. Thank you Maureen and congratulations. I agree with some earlier comments about short slide durations. I also understand the constraints and Maureen's reasoning. Two techniques were used by Maureen, as successfully as I've ever seen. For lack of better terminology, I'd commend your use of "brushing in" features in successive image itterations and effectively "super-imposing" an image on another. On occasion, I thought you were transfering a subject from original slide to a new slide - only to then decide the latter slide was actually the "original" holder of the subject. Sorry, I'm not sure I can describe what I observed and appreciated. So, for now, thank you to all who did and do contribute. We are all a little bit better for it.

Jim, is there an advantage to this? Just in editing the .wav vs editing the mp3? Or some advantage in using first the .wav in PTE?