davegee

Barry, I keep telling you that you need to change to Nikon. My suggestion to Peter was made in the same spirit as yours. Unless Peter TRIES all of the various different Converters he is not going to know what is best for him. I have been using Capture since I got my D70 when that was new. I have also kept up to date with the various different versions of PS CS but have always stuck with Capture for RAW processing. To me, it makes sense to use a Camera Specific Converter because the makers of the software have all of the necessary information required to do the job. I want a Converter that READS the WB (for instance) from my D700 NEF file and not one which GUESSES it. To each his own. IMHO etc etc etc DG

Peter, If you are going to start using NEF files from your D70 I would SERIOUSLY investigate Nikon Capture NX2. It has all that you would need in a RAW converter and is the ONLY RAW Converter that opens NEF files EXACTLY as you see them in your camera's LCD display. If you get it right in camera there is little else to do other than perhaps cloning out those nasty dust spots. If you don't get it right in camera then as well as being able to reset your camera settings retrospectively**, the U-Point (Control Point) Technology takes care of a lot of selective edits in the simplest way. ** the only things that you CANNOT change retrospectively are the ISO, Shutter Speed and Aperture. It's a bit like going back and taking the pic again. If you use the Colour Modes on the D70 then you can either change the Colour Mode (retrospectively) or use the Picture Control technology of the D3, D700, D300 etc. Try the 60 day free trial. DG

Sony Vaio VGN-FZ38M DG

For showing a PTE sequence on a TV nothing beats using your computer connected to your (HD Ready) TV via HDMI cable. You can then size the images (and your show) to suit the resolution of the TV i.e. 1920x1080 (or 1440x1080 if you want to maintain the 4:3 aspect ratio) etc. DG

"If information is vital to the show, should it not be a part of that show" That's exactly what I said above. As Barry says - if a show is CORRECTLY made with all the right boxes ticked, it is not a problem. However in the case of a show where the right boxes are NOT ticked (accidentally or through lack of knowledge), having the resolution figures would allow the viewer to know whether the show is being seen at the correct resolution or not. You cannot make people do these things but you can indicate good practice and hope that some of it will stick. Once again, I do not suggest that this should be adopted for shows intended for competition where it would perhaps not be appropriate. DG

I'm sure that we will all miss him and the inspirational work he did for the AV world. DG

The file name approach might just work. DG

Ed, I download shows from various sources to see what's happening and to improve my own work by using ideas etc. I am always wary of commenting on quality if I don't have the right information about a show. For instance if a show is made at FULLSCREEN using 1024x768 or 1400x1050 images and the incorrect settings then, on my monitor (1920x1200), those images are going to be UPSCALED to fit my monitor. We have discussed this subject over a long period of time and I think that we all agree that viewing a 1024x768 show upscaled to 1920x1200 is not a good idea. That's why the "Fixed size of slide (in pixels)" tick box is SO IMPORTANT. But, unless I KNOW that I am watching an upscaled version I could be thinking that the author has used inadequate images for his/her production and comment accordingly. All I ask is the author indicates "Best viewed at XXXX x XXXX Resolution". Is that really too much to ask? Quote:"Resolution is the single most important attribute which needs to be passed to the viewer." I'm not really worried about HOW it is passed to the viewer, but it wouldn't worry me if it were in the title credits. If it is in the download information it can get separated from the show over a period of time and then the ONLY safe way of transmitting the information is by including it inside the show somewhere. In your scenario (club competition) it is not required, but for those who want to upload to the likes of Cottage's site IMHO it is essential. Which is why I applauded Maureen's initiative. The mistake I made was in suggesting a little bit more. Slap on the wrist - don't do it again. You should know better! DG

My comment to Maureen: "I APPLAUD the fact that you have given details of the resolution, timing etc of the show - this is something I have advocated for some time now and which, unfortunately, not many people do. A further progression on this would be to put it in the opening titles so that it would remind the viewer each time it is opened." Resolution is the single most important attribute which needs to be passed to the viewer. DG

Can I say that IMHO that's a very dangerous road to go down? Let's say that you produce ten/fifty shows this way - each of the ten/fifty shows is going to contain 50 images all numbered/named exactly the same albeit that they are totally different images. That's a logistical nightmare even though they will be kept in different folders. It will work but..................... DG

The images are up to your usual very high standards and the whole thing is put together with care and attention to detail. The music doesn't bother me although I think I understand why others mentioned it. I think that each slide would benefit from being on screen for a second or two longer with perhaps a slightly longer transition time. I APPLAUD the fact that you have given details of the resolution, timing etc of the show - this is something I have advocated for some time now and which, unfortunately, not many people do. A further progression on this would be to put it in the opening titles so that it would remind the viewer each time it is opened. Thanks for sharing, DG

DVDs made on a computer are REGION FREE. It then depends on whether the recipients DVD player is capable of playing both PAL and NTSC. All computers will/should play any computer made DVD. Most modern DVD players are PAL/NTSC compatible and I have not encountered any problems in the USA or Canada. DG

DVI requires a separate audio connection. DG

Is this a viable alternative to the WD and Iomega Multi Media players? http://www.sony.co.u...pageType=manual The price is right (£59), it plays JPEG, MP3, AAC, WMA, LPCM, MPEG-1,2,4, VOB, VROand it looks a LOT smaller than others that I have seen. DaveG Edit: It looks as though it can only handle 720x576 and upscales to 1080p.

Stu, Is there a graphics card out there which will support two different outputs at different resolutions.... .....or would it need two graphics cards - one for monitor at one resolution and one for projector at a different resolution? DG

Dan, I'm going to talk in terms of PAL aspect ratios - you are on NTSC so you will need to think a little differently. When I make a PAL DVD my "image" on the DVD is ALWAYS going to be 4:3 regardless of my settings in PTE. The show that I fit into that 4:3 box will have black lines (or not) depending on the AS of my show. The best possible scenario is to make a 4:3 show to fit a PAL DVD. If I make a 3:2 show and produce a PAL DVD my "image" on the DVD is going to take up the FULL width and have black lines top and bottom. PAL is 768x576 and my Wide Screen TV is 1366x768. My TV (SONY) has settings for WIDE, SMART, 4:3 etc and the ONLY one which gives a TRUE picture (without either short fat people or tall thin people) is the 4:3 setting. Same as the DVD. The picture then takes up a proportionate number pixels on screen and I have black lines top and bottom AND on both sides. However the ASPECT RATIO is absolutely PERFECT. No other setting gives a TRUE aspect ratio picture. The only way to get a true 3:2 picture which fits the height on your TV which is probably 1920x1080 is to create a 16:9 show at 1080 pixels high on your computer and connect your computer to your TV (preferably using a HDMI connection). DG

Thanks both. As I said above - I was aware that there was a version specific issue - but I wasn't aware that each new "dot" bug fix (or whatever) constituted a "new version". I now know! I will need to formulate a strategy for coping with this - Peter, your method sounds good. The overall appearance of the menu driven sequence is first class. The last time that I did a sequence I was getting the flash back to the desktop problem. You can see how long ago that was. PTE is brilliant! DG

Sorry to resurrect this thread but I have just been constructing a menu and a couple of things cropped up which I would like to mention. Forgive me if they have been mentioned before - I have speed read the thread but couldn't find anything which confirmed what I have found. My menu is driving three sequences on my Vista laptop which were constructed on my XP desktop machine. My desktop machine was running v6.0 while my laptop was running v6.0.1. I made the menu on the Vista Laptop and wanted to use "Run Slideshow and Return" to the menu. I immediately got error messages regarding the incompatibily of the Menu with previous versions of PTE. I upgraded the XP machine to v6.0.1 and found that all was well - the sequences were easily upgraded to 6.0.1 and were then found to be completely compatible with the menu. I then decided that a little experiment was in order and I upgraded the laptop to v6.0.2 and upgraded the Menu to v6.0.2. The result was that the v6.0.1 sequences would now not run with the v6.0.2 Menu. I had to go through the same procedure again by upgrading the XP desktop machine to v6.0.2 and upgrading the sequences to v6.0.2 to achieve compatibility with the Menu. The end result is that I have a Menu driving three sequences ready to show in a couple of weeks and I'm completely happy with the way it works. No flashbacks to the screen - nothing to interrupt a smooth playing of the sequences with a little talking in between. I'm a happy bunny. So why this post? I THOUGHT that a menu made with ANY v6.x.x menu would work with ANY v6.x.x sequence - obviously this is not so. It appears that if Igor has to introduce a v6.0.3 for any reason then a MENU constructed with the said v6.0.3 would be incompatible with any sequences made with v6.0.2 or earlier. Anyone else noticed this? Has it been mentioned in another thread? DG

Gary, I think Ron means to crop to a 16:9 aspect ratio and THEN resize to 1920x1080. There's absolutely nothing wrong with your suggestion to do the crop in PTE but please consider that if your screen resolution is 1920x1080 and your image is greater than 1920x1080 then PTE is processing an unecessarily large image. If you are zooming into the image then that's a different matter. The way I look at it is "why tax the system any more than necessary". DG

When you connect any computer to a HDTV the output resolution has to be 1920x1080. In some cases (where the laptop computer monitor's resolution is a different aspect ratio) you will not be able to see both the monitor and the HDTV picture at the same time. VGA is not an ideal way to connect to a HDTV and if at all possible a DVI (plus seperate audio connections) or HDMI connection is prefered. I hope that your problem is solved. DG

How are you interfacing with the TV - laptop, DVD? If laptop - HDMI or VGA? What's the resolution / aspect ratio setting of your laptop's monitor? Does the picture look "squashed" top to bottom OR "stretched" side to side? DG

Is there not already an FAQ which states that the prefered colour space for PTE is sRGB (not RGB)? DG

Hi Ed, How can you possibly tell a "producer" what quality to use - that's OTT. Resolution yes, but surely NOT quality? DG

Firstly, there is no "TRUE" 3:2 aspect ratio which will accurately fit a 1024 wide "box". You would be better off using a larger "true" 3:2 image and fitting to screen (in your case 1200x800). The 3:2 preset is 15:10. If your laptop will not handle 1080 high images without stuttering then, by all means, use 800 high but be aware that if your show is viewed on a monitor larger than 800 high interpolation will take place with the settings I suggested. Some will argue that the degredation is not significant but you should be aware of it. You have to decide which aspect ratio is more important - your monitor's or the projector's - there are no 16:10 projectors as far as I am aware. Whatever your decision, a compromise is necessary. DG

The best approach is to use "one size fits all". Many here (myself included) use 1080 pixels high images in a 1080 pixels high show at the aspect ratio of your choice i.e: 1920x1080 for a 16:9 show 1620x1080 for a 3:2 show 1440x1080 for a 4:3 show. In Project Options / Screen set: Fullscreen Your chosen Aspect Ratio Set the correct pixel dimensions - xxxx pixels wide by 1080 pixels high Tick the box - Fixed Size of Slide When the images are added to the show they will "Fit To Screen" on your monitor and any monitor up to and including 1920x1080. They will fit to the laptop being used and also to the projector. DG