davegee

It is sort of (but not exactly) like upgrading a software package to a new version as opposed to buying the latest full version and that's the logic I use. For example, I bought Capture many moons ago and upgraded to CNX and then Upgraded to CNX2. If I want to install CNX2 on my new W7 machine (if and when I decide to get one!) I will expect to have to install Capture4 then upgrade that to CNX and then upgrade that to CNX2. As my 10 year old grandson used to tell me - "It's not Rocket Science"!! Whilst I am definitely in the camp which is begging for Igor to come up with something new/different/better I also sympathise with him that people will not use what they have between their ears. I'm back!! DG

Peter, In anticipation of similar problems I did a little experiment. I purchased my original key during the days of V4 so I loaded V4.9 on a W7 machine and just told PTE where the REG.TXT was - no problem. I then loaded V5 and V6.5 and V7 in turn and they accepted the reg.txt in the usual way. If it is any help start from the version which was current when you purchased your key. It worked for me. DG

Thanks Lin, I guess I will have to wait another week or so to try it out for myself. Your explanation makes sense but I had thought from Igors previous descriptions that it would work on the fly. DG

Why is it so important to be able to find it. Does it not convert "on the fly". I realise that it is an important asset but I thought that its function was to convert in real time. Please forgive any speeling arrores etc = German KB. DG

Why not do the editing in PTE? Apart from the audio there should be nothing that you cannot do? DG

Try removing the Music completely. Better / Worse / Same? Trying removing first half of slides then second half - does one half play better than the other? Try starting from scratch adding one image at a time and note when the blips begin? Try upgrading to V7 Beta 13. DG

Hi Ken, The difference is not with the smoothness or the speed of rotation. DG

New Improved and Updated. Anyone see the difference? DGFootball2.zip P.S. Best viewed at 1920x1080. If you are viewing at any other res you might see some unintended effects. The resolution problem strikes again!!

Martin, You are covering a lot of ground in your question. Firstly, does the EXE play smoothly on your computer? 72dpi means nothing - what are the pixel dimensions of your images (jpegs)? What is the pixel size of your project (and the aspect ratio)? Remove the music file - what happens then? It would also help to know a little about your computer and its graphics card? RAM - Graphics RAM etc. Let's go from there? DG

Mike, Please remove the expletive and get in touch with Ronnieboot west who will send you a PDF on this subject. DG

Hi Ron, That's why I gave you the link to show that the changes were made to Beta 11. DG

Ken, Sorry, but this sort of thing just hits me in the face!! DG

Colin, You didn't say what quality level you saved the B+W shots at? I'm willing to bet that after doing the B+W conversions, if you saved at quality 12, or used Save For The Web you would be able to get away with it. The beauty of SFTW is that in a two-up configuration you can see exactly what you are going to get. Ultimately, going back to the RAW file and starting from there is the answer. DG

Lin, Ken, Please compare the areas I have indicated (taken from the mono versions) with the corresponding colour versions during the change-over. I'm viewing on a 24" IIYAMA 1920x1200 Monitor from my normal viewing distance of around 3'. Lin, You are correct. I'm suggesting that the original JPEG was/might have been a quality 6 JPEG and was then converted to B+W and re-saved (once again) at quality six. The originals are OK but the second generation saves are overcompressed. DG P.S. My examples were saved at quality 12.

"Where did you hear about this software" ? DG

Colin, I have watched the show at 1920x1080 and agree for the most part with what has already been said. However, in the spirit of making a CONSTRUCTIVE comment my enjoyment was spoiled by the rather nasty JPEG artifacts displayed on some images. To give just one example, the first butterfly in black and white has some artifacts which disappear when the image changes to colour. This leads me to GUESS that you PERHAPS took the colour JPEGs and made the B+W versions from them? Whatever the reason, I think would have enjoyed the show far better without the artifacts. Sorry! DG

Thanks Roger! DG

Five minutes spent preparing your measurements will save an awfully long time at the construction phase. BTW the "truncated triangle" (hexagon) that I speak of in the EXE should be made from the same original triangle. Use the pen tool in PS at MAXIMUM zoom and you'll have a really accurate 426Hx492W triangle. DG

Ken, Which version of AVG are you on? I have played it on my up-to-date laptop with no probs. DG

Here's an EXE showing the methodology for making a Truncated Icosahedron (Football to you and I) in PTE. Best viewed at 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200). Also available here with music: http://www.beechbroo...ile.asp?id=1964 DG Icosahedron.zip

No Ron, You misunderstand - I was trying to show you that it was not a bug. You don't have to change anything. In the SLIDE view, the figure shown in the bottom right of the slide icon includes both the INCOMING and OUTGOING transition. That's the change that Igor made. It wasn't too difficult to find after all: DG

Not at all Robert - Never say Never! It's just that my D700 will not shoot movie and I can't see myself getting a movie capable DSLR any time soon. I have tried video from a variety of sources just to keep abreast of what is going on and a possibility some time in the future would be a compact camera with HD facility. Right now I'm very happy with the D700. DG

Thanks Igor!! DG

Ron, You really must try to keep up - I think what you are seeing is the result of recent changes that Igor has made. If you remove your transitions - make the transition time zero - then the slide view and timeline will show the same value. There's a thread somewhere explaining the changes - someone will jump in with a link. DG

Before going down that road try inserting the video in a "Mask". If the subject of the video is "static" positionally, you could create a mask which cuts out a lot of the extraneous background. Worth a try? DG P.S. Just tried it and it works OK. The size and position of the mask(s) can be varied by using keyframes to follow the "action". It might not be exactly what you are looking for but it's an option. DG