alrobin

Very well explained, Igor. Keep up the good work!

. You're welcome, Tom! I don't know - I had the idea to use a rotating wheel under the letters with holes punched in both, but that didn't work, as I could see the motion of the lights underneath, in one predominant direction. Also, it took a while before I finally found the coarse grain filter for the letters. If you apply it over and over a few times, the grains grow larger, until they are the size that works best. I did the same thing with the underlying rotating wheel, and then put in the one in the other direction underneath to counteract the motion, and also give the sparkle some further randomness. I set the bottom one rotating slightly slower than the first one, to further reduce the possibility of a repeat over the length of the cycle. I'll try to work on some more "wheels" to produce different intensities of glitter. Thanks, Robert! Funny you should mention that - a week or so ago I was out skiing on a cold sunny but frosty morning, and the fresh fluffy snow was glittering so much that I thought it would be nice if it could be captured in a sequence. Now, I'll have to go out and photograph some material for it.

Tom got me thinking with his post on how to achieve "glitter", so I did some experimenting, and this is what I came up with. It's a rough "quick and dirty" solution. (see project files, attached) I know it - I'll never be able to call myself a "purist" again, but I couldn't help it! The Devil made me do it! glitter_Feb9_2007.zip

Bob, Did you ever find a solution to this problem?

Lin, It would be just one small additional step to actually flip the globe over (and over, ...)! Maybe using "flippin' book" technology!

OK, here it is - make sure you all show up! (lat:45.325315 deg, lon:-75.825848).

OK, Next month at the "Cock 'n Bull" - I'll buy the first round!

Too bad we can't all meet together in a pub somewhere!

Robbys, Welcome to the Forum! I agree with Bernard - "Ingrid" is a very beautiful production! Well worth downloading - it's a keeper. Beautiful photography of waves and rushing ocean water, and rocks, etc. Good choice of music and fast-moving. Overall, nicely done.

Spoil-sport! And here the discussion was just starting to warm up!! Oh, well, I'm sure there will be another time! Watch out for those helicopters!!

Maureen, I enjoyed reading your rebuttal to Patrick's statements - you certainly have a way with words! I enjoyed the interjections of humour, too - helps to keep the discussion on a level plane and bring us down to earth (hope this isn't a 'mixed metaphor'. If it is, it can be excused since I'm part Irish! ) I do, however, object to this statement (above), and I'm sure you must not have meant it this way. I think Stephane Bidouze would also disagree with it, and I think you would agree, too, that some of the best AV's have been ones which have utilized subtle effects such as panning, zooming, rotating, etc., in helping to create a mood or add motion to an otherwise less-interesting production. For example, one feature that is new to PTE, and is used in "these new ... animations", is the ability to control the opacity of an object - this will be very useful in merging objects with the background in creating the montages which are so popular in the better "AV's" entered into competitions such as the SuperCircuit and RPS International, etc. This is turning out to be a good debate - thanks, Patrick, for starting it! Maybe when it's all over, we will have cleared the air a bit.

Brian, I doubt if the quality of DVD (even high-definition) will ever be as good as an "exe" file shown directly on a pc or projector. It has something to do with the fact that your high-resolution images are squished down to 720 x 480, (or 540, or 576, or some similar size), in the process, and then expanded out to fit the screen. With this happening to your images, the video results can never be the same as in your original show. It's a little like taking a piece of paper, cutting it into pieces, throwing away some of the pieces, rolling it all up into a ball, and then trying to smooth it out and put it all back together again. It can never look the same as it did. The amazing thing is how good the image does look on a TV set, considering what it has been through. With high-definition TV, there are codecs which don't scrunch your images down as much (e.g. 1920 x 1080, or 1035, or 1152, or whatever), but that is a ways off in the future for us. Even here, I'm sure the images will go through some sort of a degenerating transformation in the interests of overall compatibility.

OK, that is my problem - when I unzipped your files, they were all in a single directory. I'll go back and unzip, retaining the subdirectory. No, fortunately, not everyone agrees with me! But, I believe that everyone should be able to express what he or she believes - (and, of course, at the same time, to listen to any serious criticism or argument from others). Right on! And at the same time, to not take one's own self too seriously.

Patrick, You seem to be very free with your criticism, so I hope you'll forgive me for being free with my rebuttal. Point by point, you said: So far I agree with you. I think most members would still agree. You said you aren't a specialist, and this is quite obvious. The work being done by JP and Tom and Lin and Dom and Tomuk and others in no way reinvents any video software - I'm not an expert either, but I have yet to see any video software that can replicate what is being accomplished with PTE. Since when did you become the authority on the purpose for PTE? This is Igor's program, and only he can tell us what this purpose is. The fact that he has been so receptive to most of us in our "demands" is a credit to his generosity and good will! Please explain. Do you have some statistics to back this up? The demos and tutorials can hardly be classified as "slideshow productions". I'm glad you are enjoying it too. Myself, I can hardly wait each day for more fantastic special effects - most of which are simply brilliant. Patrick, Have a little faith in humanity! And open your mind to the belief that any progress in any direction with PTE will ultimately be used for more effective AV creations in the hands of experienced producers. People like Stephane and Maureen and Johan and Ian, (and the list goes on), will, I'm sure, eventually find some application for each one of the new "special effects" being experimented with. I don't mean that there will be flying cubes and ellipses in their shows. Far from it. These same effects that you are criticizing will ultimately be judiciously used by these experts in setting a mood or producing a smoother, more-controlled background movement that will astonish and "move" the viewers. Don't be disheartened by the current flurry of demos and flying objects - this activity is absolutely necessary in order to research PTE's new ingenious features and determine their limitations, capabilities, and in the end, their potential applications. This is the time to help Igor in working out the minor "bugs", and suggest improvements in how these new features are made to work. We have always touted PTE's versatility and the fact that it has possibilities for everyone. Let's not be narrow-minded at this stage and deny a good number of users some capabilities which they feel will be important in their own particular applications. This is not the time to be putting down the current developments in PTE, but rather to be supporting and encouraging Igor in his attempts to make PTE a more attractive and desirable product for whoever wishes to use it.

Hi, JP Thanks for posting all those examples of the cube - that represents a lot of work on your part!! Thanks so much for your generosity! Just a minor detail - the zipped file contains duplicates of all the "Face-A's" and "Face-B's" (see examples below). The duplicated files are not the same size. However, the demos all seem to run properly, though maybe not with the intended images.

Mellow, I enjoyed your show - nice use of panning to give a sense of motion.

Stan, Right-click on the picture-frame object in the Object List, and select "Order / Bring to front". Also, make sure that the "parent" object of the picture-frame, if any, is in front of other objects at the same level as that would take priority over any ordering of child objects. If this is not clear, please let me know and I will put together an example. Or, email me your pte project file, with no objects or music, and I'll rearrange things and send it back to you. (alrobin @ alrobinson.com)

Morasoft, Great special effects and animation. You have mastered the O&A features in PTE very well! Great spring flower photos, too! It must be a magical place!

Cal, This is a mystery - PTE could be interacting with another running program. Try disabling the anti-virus software, and closing any email or other programs running in the background.

Hi, Bob, Welcome to the Forum! Check the path designations for all your slides to make sure they are valid. Then check to see that no objects are used in the new show (the old v.4 objects are not recognized yet in v.5. Sometimes they get overlooked when copying to a new show. Also check the path designations for any music, either background, or "assigned" to specific images. (note that in v.5 you cannot yet assign music in "customize slide". Also try out the show without any music. Finally, examine the timeline to make sure there are no overlapping transitions, and that the transition for the last slide doesn't extend beyond an "end of slide" marker. Hope this helps.

Sorry, I meant "other PTE 5 shows". I have an ATI mobility card on a Dell laptop, with no problems. I think it is a Mobility X500. (too lazy to go and look right now! ). Yours sounds like a step up from mine - how many Mb of VRAM? (Mine has 128 Mb).

Sorry, I was referring to the other Tom ("tom95521"). He has designed a web page with a template which you can use for customizing a cube.

OK - sleep tight. Over and out. - there now, you've got something to censor!

Ken, I see you and raise you another point. Ken, This was done with "Fast Reply". (this was two replies, which the forum combined into one) Your move!

I'm sorry, JP - my mistake. Things are happening so fast around here that I can't keep track of who did what and why for whom! LIn, Have a look at my "Adjustor" model - it's an Excel spreadsheet for version 4, which loads a pte project file and displays various parameters which you can then change and output again, as a revised pte file. It's still on Beechbrook and can also be downloaded from my website at http://www.alrobinson.com/shows.htm . I'm sure a similar thing can be designed for version 5 once it is finalized. But I like Tom's idea better, (i.e. sending one's project files to a web server and downloading the result).