goddi

============ JRR, Thanks. I will keep my eye on this option. I don't have a projector yet or have anything that gets too big. But it might be a good thing to think about when creating shows. It will be a pain to have to go back and recreate all my MP4s since the 'Fixed Size...' has to be implemented in the creation of the .pte file before the MP4 has to be re-created. Thanks... Gary

======================= JRR, Thanks for the clarification. This makes sense if you are going to use a projector to show the slideshow. Would these concerns apply if you were using a media player showing MP4 files or the basic exe files on HDTVs? Gary

=================== Ronnie, I just gave it a try. I created an exe and an MP4, both with the 'Fixed size...' checked. I played the exe on a laptop which has a smaller screen. I saw no difference. I played the MP4 on a smaller HDTV with my media player, I saw no difference. Both showed the full 16x9, with nothing missing. So I don't know what I am to think about using or not using 'Fixed size...'. Maybe my test were not done in a way that this is supposed to show a difference. I hope someone will give an explanation about when or how thie 'Fixed size...' makes a difference. Thanks...Gary

================== Ronnie... Ok. Cropping in Photoshop appears to me to provide less flexibility. I run my original images through a program that batch-compresses these images to its default of 1000x699. I use it because it is quick and easy and does not distort the images. I have not really used 'Fix size of slide box' so I am not exactly sure what the results would be. As I understand it, if this is ticked and it is shown on a larger monitor, the show will not expand to fill the larger screen. However, what would happen if it were played on a smaller monitor? Will the show reduce to fit the smaller screen or will it stay at the 'fixed' size, going beyond the smaller sized screen? Thanks... Gary

============================== Ronnie, When you say 'resize', do your really mean Resize in Photoshop? I ask this because I use a different method and I am wondering what the best way to get the image to fit in the 1920x1080 HDTV screen. If I take a photo and Resize it in Photoshop to 1920x1080, the image fits the 1920x1080 format but the top and bottom portions of the image are 'squeezed' into the image. You don't lose any of the image but it looks distorted. If I take a photo and Crop it using the 1920x1080 size, the image is not distorted, but, of course, I lose a bit of the top and a bit of the bottom portion of the image. My method, which I have mentioned in other postings, seems to me to be a better way. After setting the 'Aspect Ratio of the Slide' in PTE to 16:9, I then zoom the image manually so that the left and right edges of the image match the left and right borders of the 16:9 black screen. Yes, I lose the top and bottom of the image as I do with Cropping in Photoshop, but I can move the image to regain whatever portion of the top or bottom that I deem more important while in PTE's O&A. With Cropping in Photoshop, once it is done, you can't adjust it unless you start the Cropping process all over again. With my method, you can tweak it at anytime within PTE. I don't hear of anyone else doing it. My method is tedious but adjustable within PTE as you go along. To make it less labor intensive, I am going to make a suggestion to Igor that when you highlight an input, such as one of the Zoom inputs, that that cell will stay highlighted when you hit the arrow buttons to go to the next image. Then all you have to do is go to the next image (after doing one Ctrl C to copy that Zoom input number) and do a Ctrl V to Paste the same Zoom input. This would make it much easier to pass on the same input to multiple slides with more ease. Does this make sense to you? Gary

======================== Lin… Thanks for the link. I may or may not understand Pan & Scan (P&S) but I haven’t found it useful. When I use P&S on a 4:3 aspect ratio setting, the image is automatically cropped at the top and bottom. You have no control over what is lost. I have been moving to using 16x9 aspect ratio. If I choose this format and then use P&S, I get black borders all around. If I choose 16x9 and manually zoom-in on each image individually in O&A (so the left and right edges fill the 16x9 format, I will lose some of the image at the top and bottom. But at least now I have the option of moving the image up or down while in O&A to regain the more important portion of the image. When I do this, I turn the P&S off and it plays as I expect, with no black boarders. But, then, I now notice that the results are the same with the above settings with P&S on or off. From what I saw in your link about Pan and Scan, it seem that it really is applied when the original images are in widescreen and you want to reduce them to fit the 4:3 TV aspect ratio. So I guess I am still confused as to why P&S’s default is ‘on’. So it seems to me, if you want to eliminate the black boarders, you (or at least I) have to zoom-in each image in O&A. And then the P&S setting does not affect the results. With this, the PTE show fills my LED TV, edge to edge. What am I missing???? Gary

=================== Greetings, I just found that MultiAVCHD came out with an updated version 4.0. I gave it a try. I did not receive any errors that stopped the processing of an PTE MP4. I created the AVCHD output and it does play with Media Player Classic...but, again, not on my JVC DVD player which is suppose to play this format. I also created the HD output but I couldn't get the files to play. When I tried to play the Video_TS.IFO file, I got an error message that showed it was having a problem with the 'ffdshow' file. Nor will it play in my Blu-ray player. So, I have made progress but the outputs from MultiAVCH still do not work for me. multiAVCHD 4.0 build 731 [17/02/2010] build 731 - Version 4.0. Motion menu, background audio, 8 pages x 12 chapters, Audio/Subtitles setup menu and a lot more. http://multiavchd.deanbg.com/ http://www.videohelp.com/download/multiAVCHD_4.0.exe Gary

==================== Eric... JRR brings up a good point. My recent purchase of my new computer has an E-Sata port. I connect my external drive to it, since it is a Sata drive. The speed of this external drive, being Sata and connected via a Sata cable makes a world of difference in the speed of doing a backup. I have 3 500Gb internal drives and the external is 1.5TB (which has the USB, Firewire and Sata ports). I did a test once and, using a USB cable, a backup took about 3 hours. Using the E-sata connections, it took less than 1 hour. Not all external drives have the USB, Firewire AND the Sata ports. I would recommend anyone getting a new PC to have the E-Sata port in their PC and get external drives that have not only the USB/Firewire ports but also the Sata connection. It really makes a difference. Just my experince... Gary Added later... You don't list which motherboard you will be getting. Maybe you already will have one since you are getting a Sata internal drive. I really don't know. But I'd do a Google on your motherboard to doublecheck if it has or does not have one. It was not listed as a port in the advertisment of my ASUS's motherboard but it was listed in its manual.

============ Carol... I don't like the automatic Pan&Scan in PTE. When using 16x9, I prefer to manually zoom in on each image (losing portions the top and bottom of the image) so I can individually pick and choose what portion of the image I show or not show. So I keep Pan&Scan off. I use Windows7's firewall and BitDefender antivirus. If it don't work with these on, the I's rather not use the program. No resident anti-malware program and not running Norton. I think I'll just step to the sidelines for now to see what others come up with. Thanks for your help. Gary

============ Carol, Yes, they were both unchecked, therefore disabled. When I installed my first version, it did ask to disable incompatible codecs and I accepted it. I removed that program before I install your version. But your version did not ask...apparently it was done with the first version. Gary

================== Carol... I re-created the MP4 with the Custom settings above. I got the same error message when I tried to Add the file in SoThink HD Movie Maker. I looked in the Options menu and it does have 2 codecs that it has listed as incompatible, the MS DTV-DVD Audio and Video Decoder. Gary

================ Hi Carol, My MP4s play fine on my WMP and on my Media Player Classic programs. The MP4s that I have tried were created in PTE at 16x9, HD 1920x1080 HQ, Pan and Scan=No. Hope this helps. Thanks... Gary

==================== Carol, Thanks for the PM. I tried it (1.2 build 90818) but got the same errors. I happened to also download the SoThink Video Converter 3.0 and it too, gives me the same "Failed to add..." error message when I try to add an MP4 or an AVI file. Gary

================ Carol... I am striking out. I can't get MultiAVCHD to work. And now I tried SoThink and I can't get it to recognize my files. I tried a PTE MP4 file and I got "Failed to add..." error message. I then tried an AVI file and got the same result. Not sure what is going on. I have Win7. Gary

================== Greetings Carol, I tried it again. I re-installed the Avisyntah 2.5.8 as you suggested. I tried MultiAVCHD again and got similar results. I burned the AVCHD file that it produced to a DVD but my JVC Blu-ray player would still not recognize it (though it says it should). I tried creating the HD output. I let it sit for over 9 hours and when I returned, the progress bar showed only 0.3% done!!! I stopped the process. I don't think this is going to work for me. I might not have the right boxes ticked but it is beyond my understanding. I do see others have great results. I will stay tuned to see what others might be discovring about this program. Thanks for your help. Gary PS I ran the Malwarebytes and it showed no problems. DavyC...thanks. I'll take a look at that site.

======================== Greetings, It is interesting that you posted a note about malware associated with the MultiAVCHD program. Just before you posted your message, I thought that I had a malware that was caused by MultiAVCHD. It might be the result of me not really knowing what I am doing but let me explain. I am assuming that this program is used for creating high quality DVDs that are better than the regular DVD’s created directly from PTE. I gave it a try. So I created an MP4 file in PTE. Then I ‘Added the Video’ file in MultiAVCHD. I chose the ‘HD-DVD for DVD-R’. I hit ‘Start’. However, here is what I got: [18:34:41] *** Encoding : One pass - content: [00:01:59] [18:34:41] Cannot detect file size: (E:\PTE-Dog Event\Dog Event_new.[1920x1080-23.976].264) [18:34:41] *** Speed : 18289.38 fps (elapsed: 00:00:00 - Realtime x 762.82) [18:34:41] Cannot detect file size: (E:\PTE-Dog Event\Dog Event_new.[1920x1080-23.976].264) [18:34:41] *** Transcoding failed! [18:34:41] *** Check ffdshow/avisynth/haali (reinstall)! [18:34:41] *** DEBUG: Try to play [C:\multiAVCHD\tools\20100214-183441-uncrop Then I noticed the problem. When I tried to go into the folder ‘E:\PTE-Dog Event’, I got an error message: ‘Windows Explorer has stopped working’. I could not get into that specific folder and it would automatically close each time I tried to open it. A Malwarebytes scan showed no problems. After a couple hours of trying things, I finally figured out that if I delete (through DOS) the file, ‘Dog Event_new.mkv', the problem went away. Now this might not be a malware problem, but it is a problem created by MultiAVCHD. I don’t know what I did wrong, but the problem is repeatable. I don’t know what I am doing wrong. So that did not work. Then I tried creating an AVCHD disk. This worked. It burned to a DVD-R disk. However, my JVC Blu-ray player does not recognize it even though the specs say it will play that format. My WD Media Play did recognize the AVCHD file and play it (I copied the entire AVCHD folder to a memory stick). Maybe I am missing something but I don’t see how to make use of the MultiAVCHD program. If I have it right, you are using the MultiAVCHD to create higher quality DVDs, but I can’t seem to get it to work. Any ideas on what is going on? Thanks… Gary

==================== Colin, I particularly liked how you did the fireworks portion. However, I don't get the apology for the mix of horizontal and vertical images. I have read many times in the Forum of the aversion to using vertical images in a PTE show. However, I think that adding appropriate vertical images add to the dynamics of a slideshow. Wouldn't taking the Eiffel Tower as a vertical make sense? Or the Petronas Towers? There was nothing wrong with your verticals and they made sense and did not detract from the show. Just my 2 cents for advocating for a mix of horizontals AND verticals. I don't mean to start anything here but I feel photography calls for both. Gary

=========================== Ron... Putting PTE HD's on Blu-ray has been on my mind too. However, buying a burner and discs seems to be a bit on the expensive side and more time consuming, at the moment. I have gone with the WD HD media player (the European version seems to be the Medion Media Player?) to play my PTE HDs on my HD TV. The results are outstanding. So I am wondering if anyone has been able to compare the results between these two methods, PTE's on an HD media player vs. on a Blu-Ray disc. Playing them with something like the WD HD media player seems to be more straightforward and, in the longrun, less expensive since you can play them off of any memory stick. But...if the quality is improved, maybe going with Blu-ray is worth it. Has anyone seen any difference in the quality? Thanks... Gary

Greetings, I am getting more into creating MP4 files. I have Created two 'MP4 HD (1920x1080) Video for PC' slideshows from the same PTE show. One was created in HQ; file size is 165Mb. The second file was created in LQ; file size is 64Mb. The 'problem' is that I don't see a difference in quality. I am wondering if anyone else has done this comparison and come up with the same conclusion. Of course, I'd rather be creating smaller sized files if there is not visible difference. So I'd like to know if there really isn't any difference in what you might see between the HQ and the LQ results. I have played the two shows on a 40" LED TV screen and I can not tell the difference. Thanks... Gary

This is a short story about a fox. The photography is poor but it was difficult focusing and using flash through a double pane glass door at night. He is having a problem with mange on his tail. I have helped cure several foxes in the past that were in much worse condition. He still comes by most every night. Sometimes, his mate, who is in perfect condition, stops by. However, the fox with the mange has subsequently suffered a very deep and wide gash to his left rear side. You can see the flesh of his muscle, and he limps a bit. I have great respect for these creatures out in the wild. I just hope he recovers. It is hosted on: http://www.beechbrook.com/pte/ Gary P.S. Sure, comments, critiques welcomed...

==================== Dan...I am glad to get the message out. I got the idea from someone else in this Forum. Isn't technology fun??? But since I don't have kids to teach me the latest techno innovations, I am really behind the times and I have to be self-taught. I wouldn't have any idea what to do with a PS3 if I had one!!! But I am happy to hear of someone now enjoying their own 'home-movies' as I am. Gary

=================== morturn... I'd give it an A+. It was very captivating. Music...perfect. Images...evocative. The only problem I had was that it ended so abruptly. I was wanting more. Thanks... Gary Added later... Ok...now tell use how you created the exe with the images having black boarders only on the top and bottom. It looked great, too, with the thin white trim.

============= JRR, That is interesting because I had never heard about the two different folders. I just saw a response from the same Listserv I had posted above. He backs up your statment. But the sticky part seems to be the availability of drivers for peripherals. Gary --- "The caution I raised was with drivers. If you're going to use a peripheral that doesn't provide an updated 64-bit driver you may run into problems. On the other hand, HP (and presumably other vendors) are making 64-bit drivers available for most of their more recent printers, officejets, etc. I had no problems finding a 64-bit driver for an HP all-in-one printer that was a couple of years old. All 32-bit (x86) based software runs flawlessly under the 64-bit OS. Actually, on 64-bit systems windows creates two Program Files folders, one named "Program Files" where all 64-bit software installs and another named "Program Files (x86)" where all 32-bit software gets installed. As far as the user is concerned, whether he's running a 32 or 64 bit software is indistinguishable. You're correct that the only reason to switch to a 64-bit system is to address larger chunks of RAM. The x86 systems can only address barely above 3 GB of RAM. But more and more systems come with 4 GB of RAM today and the trend will continue upwards. A lot of systems sold by OEMs and retailers already come with Win7 64-bit. These systems are basically advertised as Windows 7; in other words, the consumers are unaware that they're buying a 64-bit system. You'll only see this trend multiply."

====================== Yachtsman1... I just got the following info from a computer club's Listserv. More info to digest. This is one of the reasons I did not go with 64bit now. I can always do it in the future. Gary -- "I don't know if you subscribe to Windows Secrets, but there's an article in the most recent (paid) edition by Michael Lasky, which you should read, but in part, here's what he said:" "General-purpose PCs using 64-bit processors emerged in 2003. To this day, however, 64-bit versions of such major applications as MS Office, Adobe Photoshop, Web browsers, and security suites have been vaporware. Also, finding 64-bit drivers for your PC's peripherals has been like playing the digital equivalent of "Where's Waldo?" — and in many cases, Waldo is nowhere to be found." Lasky said that the biggest reason for 64 bitness is to use large amounts of RAM. If your datasets aren't large (over 2GB), then it really doesn't make much sense. I think we'd all be pressed to create word docs that are in that size range. Not the same, perhaps for databases, but I think that you'd be pressed pretty hard to even create spreadsheets that are that big--but WTF do I know? ;-)) At the end of his article, Lasky basically says that 64 bit computing is not yet ready for prime time, and until such time that there are the software and drivers available, it won't be."

==================== Yachtsman1... While looking around for info on the 64 bit OS, I came across this information. Probably stuff you have already learned but it seems to be a nice brief on the difference. I stuck with Win7 32bit in my new PC. One thing that a tech guy told me is that saving data with a 64bit OS will require a large hard drive because it is saving the data in larger 'chunks', therefore, more wasted space. I have yet to find any discussion about this so I am wonder if this is really true. http://lifehacker.com/5431284/the-lifehacker-guide-to-64+bit-vs-32+bit-operating-systems Gary