mbskels

If this change was also implemented in XP/2000 would it not fix the problem for those with ATI Radeon cards? malcolm

It is currently possible to initiate slide changes when an on-screen button is clicked (Goto slide function). Could this be extended to enable a slide change when the button is hovered? This would open up new possibilities when creating interactive slide shows with on-screen menus.

Hi Lin, Spot on! Notepad confirmed your diagnosis. Have fixed the pte and all works fine now. Many thanks for your quick response. Regards Malcolm

Hi, Tried to open a pte file created March 2005 using my current version (4.48) and got a Windows error message box "No Disk" which I cannot then close. Ended apr.exe using Task Manager but still could not close windows error dialog box - later discovered apr.exe is actually still running in background - can still see it in applications list. Have to reboot to recover. Suspect from error messages at reboot that there is a problem with a dll. Can anyone advise whether there is a backwards compatibility issue with p2Exe. I have tried opening other pte files created before 2006 and get the same problem. I have changed computer and OS since creating original pte file from WS2000 to XP2 Pro. pte file was created originally with v4.40 beta 4. Any advice? TIA Malcolm

Hi, PC GeForce 5200 128MB - PteShow and Flowers fine. Laptop Intel 8284 5G/GL 64MB - Flowers fine. PteShow not smooth especially during transitions Malcolm

Hi Geoff, It is indeed well worth asking the question - and one that deserves the thoughtful consideration of the user base. The answer requires a detailed understanding of the product and the market place that it operates within. Given that the creation of an avi file is an existing part of the product then presumably the originators felt that this was an appropriate development path. The decision should not be made on on the basis of the interest or lack of interest in DVD of individuals in the user community. It should be made on the basis of the most viable development path for the future of the product. Malcolm

Hi, The original post is not about avi files or the production of DVD. It is about the future direction of development of P2Exe and therefore in my view firmly belongs on this section of the forum. I have spent over twenty five years in IT and have in the past invested time, money, blood, sweat, and tears in learning and using some very high quality software packages that have ultimately died and are no longer with us. There are many professional programmers that, like myself, deeply regret the demise of these software packages and wonder where it all went wrong - could we have done more to prevent it or did we contribute, perhaps unknowingly, to its demise. Once gone they are lost forever - no matter how fine they were or how relatively poor the rival products may be. Ther are many factors that determine the success or failure of a software product over a long period of time. Ultimately those that develop the package must assume responsibility for its direction. To split off the development of DVD from the main product as suggested in this thread would be a bold step given the existing incorporation of this functionality in rival products. Similarly, the current development philosophy of concentrating on the core of the product to the exclusion of ancilliary functionality (eg audio) is difficult to evaluate in the long term. I am more than happy to leave these decisions to the originators - but I am in no doubt that these decisions are very significant to the long term future of the product. Like others I am uneasy with the curent charging structure for this product but I have reservations that this should determine whether the product is split into two or more products. That decision should be based on other issues. If the charging mechanism is unrealistic it should be updated by the originators - only they can make a judgement on the suitablity of the charging mechanism. In my view this type of discussion is of significant interest to all P2Exe users irrespective of their involvement in the production of DVD and therefore belongs here. Malcolm

Thanks Dave, All is clear now Malcolm

Dave, Can you clarify how Spyder PRO is used to create a profile for your projector. Also why is the PRO version required? Thanks Malcolm

Many thanks for clarifying that Igor. Unfortunately it is proving very difficult to identify a laptop with a high spec graphics card like those you specify with a native XGA screen resolution and 4:3 format. The club projector is XGA and we are advised the laptop should also be native XGA for optimal quality. In fact it is difficult to identify a laptop with a high spec graphics card that is not wide screen format. I guess the club members will have to decide where to compromise. One option is to use a PCMCIA card, for example the vtbook at http://www.villagetronic.com/e_pr_vtbook.html but again not sure of its performance. One of the club members uses one so I think we will wait for the beta and test it out. Malcolm

Hi Ken, Thanks - but Igor specifies GeForce and Radeon cards (commonly found in PC's) in that thread and I am unable to compare performance of those with Intel/PCI Express. Anyone help? Malcolm

Hi, Local camera club is considering buying a new laptop with Intel 915GM chip and PCI Express. Any advice on how this would cope with v5. Thanks Malcolm

I do hope I have not dragged in a red herring! My original comment on the other thread was based purely on surmise - I have no practical experience. Ian - Personally I hope that a higher res image will suffice for pan and zoom. Part of the attraction of P2Exe has been that most PC's have been able to play the slideshow irrespective (within limits) of graphics card, processor etc. Or perhaps it is unrealistic to expect this type of manipulation (pan and zoom) without assuming some minimum performance is available from processor, graphics card? Malcolm

Hi Ken, Interesting experience. As I said I am not an AV expert but I was surmising that zooming into an image would be achieved by gradually displaying a part of the image at full screen ie if the original image is 1024x768 then zooming in would gradually display say a 200x150 pixels section on the 1024x768 screen. This would be similar to using the zoom tool in image editing software - pixelation will result fairly quickly as zoom is applied if the original image is only 1024x768. I suppose all will be revealed once pan and zoom is available in P2Exe. Or perhaps admin1 would be able to advise. Malcolm

Tripstrilles I am not an expert but I thought that the introduction of pan and zoom would require an increase in image size. Would zooming into an image not result in pixellation if the original slide was only 1024x768? malcolm

Hi, 1024x768@72dpi is my current choice as well but will we all have to reconsider once pan and zoom is available? Malcolm

Nickles, Not at home just now so I cannot confirm but I think that digital asset management (DAM ) products have an option that allows you to write information back to the exif data in the original image file. Have a look at Portfolio and/or Cumulus. Some photographers use these products for cataloging although they are more complex to use and tend to be more expensive. ExifUtils (http://www.hugsan.com/EXIFutils) is a fairly low cost program for writing to the Exif data. It is a DOS command program though and not all the fields in the Exif data are writable. I use Lupas Rename for renaming files. It gives you a preview of the file names that will be created before you hit the "Go" button and therefore avoids problems if you have got the renaming structure wrong. Malcolm

Hi, I fail to see which post in this thread is guilty of getting the issue out of proportion. The original post and subsequent comment from the originator seem pretty balanced to me. Removal of the run external exe facility is obviously not possible but given the wide use of this facility in P2E slideshows the issue is certainly worth knowing about in my view.

Hi Brian, I interpreted the original post to mean that there was a potential for the "run external exe" facility in P2E to be abused my someone with malicious intent ie they could include an instruction to run a damaging exe in a P2E slideshow. I am not clear why his fears should be allayed by your explanation about the potential misuse of jpegs. Could you clarify whether you believe his fears are or are not valid? Thanks Malcolm Malcolm

Hi Ron, Cumulus support for RAW format was very late in coming and is currently patchy. With Cumulus you almost always have to licence the base product and the plug-ins you require for your purpose. I believe you are correct that RAW falls into that category - I do not have the latest version to confirm. The ability to batch is a good feature but obviously I chose an example "status" that is included as a standard field in Portfolio. To evaluate Portfolio you will have to select a field that is user defined in Portfolio and establish how easily you could set that field for say 50% of the images in your catalogue. My own experience is that the flexibility of catalogue software in making retrospective changes is important. Portfolio seemed pretty good to me the last time I looked at it. On the basis of the prices you quote I suspect that it has decreased in price since I looked and it seems good value now. Happened to come across this post in the Cumulus forum from a member who has both Cumulus and Portfolio and I have quoted from it below: ["I also have Portfolio 7 and have to say that it is far superior in terms of stability, interface, ease of use, customer orientation and anticipation of customer needs - although I prefer Cumulus and bought it because of the power which 'appeared to be under the hood' plus the fact that I personally find the nested categories very useful. I am a nature photographer and I set up categories with subcategories covering various species i.e. Insects|Butterflies|Fritilleries|Peacock etc. which makes it very easy to find what I need without searching. HOWEVER - I am beginning to lose patience with this software and with the company who seem to care very little about their customers and their needs. Years ago I worked for a software company whose developers had the attitude "what do they want to do that for" whenever they were asked for new features to meet customer needs. Canto seem to suffer from the same problem."] Thought you may find his view interesting and as I said before my impression is that most photographers (as opposed to DAM companies) share his opinion. Malcolm

Hi Ron, I find batch changing data crops up all the time. I use it routinely for example to change a user defined field ("status") that allows me to follow the progress of a batch of images as the editing process continues over several weeks (or months!). It also allows me to change my mind fairly easily over the catalogue structure. I can create a new user defined field then batch select older images to set the field accordingly. (I have found there is a limit of approx 200 to the number in the batch on my PC - suspect it is a RAM issue.) The difference in practice is similar to when P2Exe introduced the ability to customise multiple slides at the same time. It made a lot of things feasible that would have been simply too time consuming before. As I said I cannot recommend Cumulus - it is too long a learning curve for most photographers. If you have a programming background it is easier to learn though and you can now extend the functionality by writing Java add-ons. Last time I looked I got the impression that most folk on the Cumulus forum felt that Portfolio was the better product but that it was significantly more expensive than a single user licence for Cumulus. Malcolm

Hi Ron, I would be interested in hearing your final opinion on Portfolio. I have used Cumulus ( Portfolio and Cumulus are the two main players in DAM software) for over two years. I cannot recommend Cumulus as I feel it has always been targeted at large organisations rather than individual photographers eg very slow to deal with RAW format until very recent releases, long learning curve, etc. The search facilities in Cumulus are however excellent as is the cataloguing process itself which is complex but very flexible. The two features that have kept me with Cumulus despite all its problems are: 1. You can make a single change to the data across multiple images. This makes life much easier but it is a feature often absent from competitor products. 2. The user defined fields are very flexible. You can set a default value for a user defined field. You can also make them drop-down list fields where only a set number of options are available. This is far superior to user defined fields that are free text because drop down lists enforce consistency. I would be interested to hear how the latest version of Portfolio handles these issues. You may find the Extensis forum (I think there is one) to be very revealing. Spending a bit of time on the Cumulus forum reveals most of the glitches - the kind you don't find until after you have bought the software! - I doubt I would have purchased Cumulus had the forum been available at that time. Malcolm

Hi All, Have been using P2Exe for one or two years now and have gleaned some understanding of the history of the product and the people involved from this forum. I have been asked to do an overview of the product at the local camera club and would like to get my facts right. Could someone give me a brief history - when and why it was first developed, those involved initially and since then etc. I am also aware there is a French forum, and Beechbrook but it would be good to know how these came about. Many Thanks Malcolm

Hi All, My top request (apart from Pan and Zoom) : I find it difficult to transfer slideshows to other computers because the location of each slide is defined by the full path + filename eg c:\slideshow\slide1.jpg. How about splitting the path from the filename by creating a new path field? This would be a single text field to hold the default path for all slides in the show. The existing field could be retained to define the individual slide filename. Changing the path for all slides in a show would then be a change to a single field. If the new default pathname field was left null then the existing field could still be used to hold the complete path and filename as at present. This would ensure that existing slideshows would still work and also accomodate those who do not use a single folder to hold all images. Apologies if this functionality can be achieved within the existing product but I have been unable to see how to do it. Malcolm

Hi, Click on the slide that you want to start the preview from in the slide list and then click on the small icon in the preview window (bottom right of slide preview window). The show will then start from the transition into the slide selected. I have found the new tutorial by Al Robinson to be very helpful as it is full of time-savers like this. It's well worth downloading. Malcolm