davegee

Found it! I hadn't noticed those controls before! Thanks, DG

Igor, I confirm that the L2 Compact MOV files now work - thanks! Anyone: If I insert a video as an object how do I delay it playing until the transition is completed? Have I missed something? DG

Igor, I mean to be able to PAINT our own masks which are not either rectangular or oval? Example:

Igor, Will it ever be possible to create our own masks from within PTE? DG

Quick work Igor!! Many thanks. DG

A little while ago I asked Igor whether Differential Sharpening was going to be possible in V7 to which he replied that it wasn't going to be possible. The good news is that IS possible and I offer a method below. Whether you want to use it or not is another matter! In its simplest form imagine that you have a landscape shot to which you want to apply sharpening to the foreground and softening to the sky during a Pan. Add your image to the Slide list and, in O&A, use the Sharper/Smoother Slider (in properties) to sharpen the image (-128). Now, add a rectangular (slightly) blurred mask to the top of the slide with a second copy of the same image in perfect sync with the original. Set the Sharper/Smoother slider for the Mask Image to make the top of the image smoother (128). Adjust the mask to suit the horizon and you have Differential Sharpening/Smoothing of the Image. If the whole package is added to a FRAME then PZR can be applied to the frame quite easily. Keyframes applied to the Mask can be made to adjust the mask to reveal the whole of the "sharper" version at the end of the PZR. A custom made Mask (made in Photoshop etc) would allow for a horizon which isn't "level" or for trees etc. Better still - if we were able to paint our own mask in PTE........... Are you listening, Igor? DG

Users with cameras producing AVI Movies will have no problems. Cameras which produce Full HD 1920x1080 Movies appear to use the MOV format. D7000 Movie Spec:

Hi Igor, I have sent a PM with link to typical (short) MOV file from Nikon Compact Camera. This file works in Quick Time, Real Player, WMP etc DG

Thanks Igor, The MOV format is currently being used by Nikon and other manufacturers for their DSLR and Compact Camera movies so I envisage that many photographers will want to use this format straight out of camera. DG

Igor, I'm getting an access violation error when trying to insert a .MOV file. The details change but the error will not go away and I have to use Task Manager to close PTE before I can continue. It happens on both my Vista Laptop and my XP Desktop machines. Please ask if you want further info. DG

Dave, I think you're right - there appears to be a bug. I emailed Igor about it. Best regards, Lin I can't even get that far. Access violation error on trying to insert - I've tried a few different .MOV files. I am also getting the same error on both my Vista Laptop and my XP desktop machines. I'll log a possible bug. DG

It might be useful for anyone posting to give PIXEL SIZE of movies as well as format? I just tried playing a full HD 1920x1080 MP4 without PZR and it works fine. DG

Do you have a .MOV file straight out of camera that you can try? DG

Peter, Which format are you using? I can insert MP4 and AVI so far. DG

Lin, Good demo. Just to clarify, what format are your videos? MP4 are OK. DG

The quality is amazing. It took just seconds to insert a 400Mb - 800x450 - MP4 file into a frame and perform a 360 degree pan/rotate on it. It plays without fault on my "old technology" nVidia GE 7600 GS 512Mb card. It's a little over the 20Mb limit but I'll live with that. Investigating the other improvements. Well done! DG

So, the fun begins again! Downloaded and installed OK. DG

Keep watching! DG

This is my approach - you will find that not everyone agrees!! Each image should be sized individually to suit the PZR applied in order to make the show as efficient as possible. It should be no bigger in pixel size than required. Using Images Straight Out Of Camera is sometimes a recipe for disaster. Example: if NO PZR is applied to an image it should be no bigger than the Maximum Screen size that you have set in Project Options / Screen. In my case, that is 1920x1080 with "Fixed Size Of Slide" ticked. If you are going to apply a 120% Zoom to an image it should be no bigger than 120% of the Maximum Screen size that you have set in Project Options / Screen. In my case, that would be 2304x1296. If you are going to apply a 200% Zoom to an image it should be no bigger than 200% of the Maximum Screen size that you have set in Project Options / Screen. In my case, that would be 3840x2160. Regarding JPEG Compression you will find once again that there are various opinions on this. My advice would be to use "Save For The Web" and this gives you the opportunity to see the end result and judge for yourself whether any JPEG artifacts are being introduced at your chosen compression level. Keep both the Pixel Size and File Size as low as possible without compromising quality. DG

I think that you are trying to tackle more than one problem. Firstly your jerkiness problem. What are the details of the Computer and Graphics Card - Integrated or seperate? What are your screen options settings? What's the size of the image you are trying to perform the PZR on? The image only needs to be as big as is necessary to perform the PZR - AND NO BIGGER. I think that the BORDER issue was that when you zoom into a picture with a border on you COULD lose the border. To be able to maintain the border and be able to zoom in you need to apply a border as a PNG file at the top of the "layers" so that everything that happens with PZR happens UNDER the border. Applying borders as you suggest should not effect performance. DG

DG

I always thought the word "Beamer", when used to describe what we call a Projector, originated in the USA? DG

Gary, It's not just about ASPECT RATIO - we've been through all this before. On a 4:3 1400x1050 projector you can project ANY AR you desire. On a 16:9 1920x1080 projector you can project ANY AR you desire. A 4:3 image (1440x1080) is going to look equally good on either projector. On a 4:3 (1400x1050) Projector a 16:9 image (1920x1080 original Size) becomes 1400x788 (1.1032MP) on screen regardless of the size of screen. On a 16:9 (1920x1080) Projector a 16:9 image (1920x1080 original Size) is 1920x1080 (2.076MP) on screen regardless of screen size. That's twice as much definition etc etc etc...................................... 3:2 images pro rata.................... I REALLY do appreciate your comments about funding etc, but with a 4:3 1400x1050 projector you will be behind the race already and starting out on old technology. Good luck with your decision - and welcome to Digital Competition. DG

I agree with Peter. Organising work properly in advance can pay big dividends later on. Frames are good working practice. DG

I KNEW that you would! I almost put it in my post. In some ways I agree with you Barry, but I think that because we are now NOT going to change all of the TV manufacturer's minds re: 16:9 and our hobby is closely aligned with TVs, I for one will stick with them. (Even though my CURRENT computer monitor is 16:10). There's also the fact that manufacturers of Projectors don't (in the main) make their products for Camera Enthusiasts - they make them (in the main) for the Home Cinema and Commercial market which is also closely aligned with the TV Industry. It seems to me that the most obvious format to appeal to Camera Enthusiasts would be 3:2 but, and I have posed this question before, I don't think anyone makes one? DG