davegee

John, Be aware that if you add the border in PS you will not be able to use PZR without losing the border. Wideangle's "trick" is a good one. DG

Hi Barry, I have viewed at full 1920x1200 resolution and the quality just jumps off the monitor screen. I forced myself to read the titles and not be distracted by the pictures emerging in the title sequence. I have to admit that it was difficult (but not impossible). Seeing them at full resolution made me wonder if those who are still hampered by lower resolution monitors get a different effect than intended due to the "mix" of background texture and normal image? In other words, is it possible that the texture needs to be faded back a little for the older, lower resolution monitors? Just a thought! First class show - it ended a little too soon and left me wanting more. I saw some of the rock paintings when we were out there and they are so impressive! DaveG

Gary, You cannot "resize" your image out of the camera that way. For a distortion-less image in 16:9 format you MUST crop to 1920x1080 (16:9) and lose some of the top and bottom. Set up and save a crop tool to do just that and crop your images to the 16:9 format. Or, in IMAGE SIZE make sure that you CONSTRAIN PROPORTIONS to get the the 3:2 (ish) aspect ratio when altering height or width. If you want to use the images straight from camera then I would sugget that you make your images 3:2 and 1080 pixels high. Your camera produces an image which is not EXACTLY 3:2 so for uniformity I suggest that you set up a 3:2 crop tool and use it on all images. Use the 15:10 option in Project Options / Screen. That way you have the optimum for computer and HD Video. On your computer the images will fit to the WIDTH of your 4:3 monitor (black lines top and bottom) and on your TV they will fit to the HEIGHT of your screen (black lines at the sides). If you don't want to crop your out of camera images, I would suggest that to be the only way of getting a compromise between computer and TV. I have chosen to crop my images to suit the 16:9 format and get the best compromise between my 16:10 monitor, the occasional TV show and the 16:9 projector that I sometimes use. Two out of three is not bad! Knowing what I know now I think that I should have bought a 16:9 monitor a few years ago instead of my 16:10 but I have learned to compromise. DG

Gary, Attached is a Backup in Zip of a 1920x1080 project which, when played on both my 1920x1200 monitor and my steam driven 1024x768 laptop monitor, FILLS THE WIDTH OF THE SCREEN with black bars top and bottom. Please unzip to your desktop and try it and then reprt back? I hope it works - I don't normally use Backup In Zip. DG Goddi_Jan28-2010_22-50-44.zip

Gary, If you are using 1920x1080 images in a 1920x1080 show then, in O&A, your images will FILL the screen area shown (at 100%). If you are using smaller images then they will appear in O&A with the black border (at 100%). Are you getting this in O&A? Post a screen shot of your OPTIONS / SCREEN Tab and let us know what size images you are using. DG P.S. I picked up one of these HD TV players in PC World recently to have a look at the specs. The one I looked at had an output resolution of 1280x720 which, if not upscaled to suit your 1920x1080 would give the sort of scenario you are experiencing - it's not that is it?

Gary, I'm not sure if I know the answer to your problem but I can tell you my experiences/setup for doing exactly the same thing. I use 1920x1080 images in a 16:9 show with "Fixed Size of Slide" ticked. i.e. Fullscreen Aspect Ratio = 16:9 Virtual Size = 1920x1080 That show will fit to the width of any aspect ratio monitor from 4:3 (1024x768) right up to my 16:10 (1920x1200) with black lines where appropriate at the top and bottom but never at the sides. When playing the same show from my laptop to the 16:9 TV via HDMI (same setup as your WD) the show automatically fills the screen. I started doing this a couple of years ago and reported it here - others have since adopted this methodology with the same results as you are experiencing. DG

I've been using Perfect Disc for a few years with no problems whatsoever. DG

Be carefull when setting the resolution. 1920x1080=16:9 1920x1200=16:10 Use the MONITOR's Resolution. Another point - if the new monitor (and your computer) have HDMI (the monitor will) use it in preference to VGA! DG

You must set your computer to the FULL resolution and aspect ratio of the monitor - 1920x1200 - 16:10. Then all will be fine. DG

Barry, You are, basically, correct. It takes a VERY high standard of musicianship to construct a MIDI sequence and to make the listener even wonder - "Is that MIDI or is it real". DG

Alan, Have you checked you junk mail box? That's a common problem. DG

"Probably we will add "Export tracks to MP3" option to mix all tracks into one audio file. You will able choose both ways". That's good enough for me! DG

Hi Ken/Peter, Ken may have got it slightly wrong (or I have misunderstood his intention). I don't advocate the use of DVD for this application - I've never had satisfactory results this way. What I DO advocate is connecting a laptop (with HDMI output) to your TV and playing your 1920x1080 EXE file directly. Some have indicated that they have had good results using VGA connection. Having tried both I can definitely state that there is a clear difference between the two on my setup. Furthermore, when connected via VGA (on MY SONY setup) the TV limits the width you can use to something closer to 16:10 format. Black lines each side. Laptop - HDMI - 16:9 TV. It's the only way to go. I realise that this advice is of no use to anyone wanting to mail a DVD to a relative/friend. Peter didn't say what his intention was in that respect. DG

I find myself agreeing with Brian re: "I agree with Xaver and Peter on this proposal ~it wont work~ and I have forgotten how many times Ken and I have have remarked about those who come on the Forum with a problem ~get it fixed~ and we never hear from them again not even a acknowledgement nor a thanks. In comparison to those persons there are many Forum Members who appreciate the help given by others whether the problem is solved or not." I would like to offer an alternative under the conditions outlined by Brian. Give the thread a reasonable amount of time and if the OP doesn't get back the Administrator marks it "CLOSED". DG

Xaver, Speaking purely for myself, I have always had reservations about what is proposed by Igor regarding sound editing. We all know that multiple tracks CAN (but not always do) cause problems. The proposal encourages multiple tracks, UNLESS it is Igor's intention to mix the multiple tracks into one for the EXE? DG

You can put a RECTANGLE under the text. Change its size using the grab handles. Change its colour, fill mode etc in O&A Properties. Change its opacity in O&A Animation DG

Set up the first slide the way you want it with Image, Title and Author's Name. Copy that as many times as required. In O&A go to (new) slide two and change the image in Properties - if all images are in the same folder that's easy. Edit the Title text and the Author's Name text to suit. Go to slide three and repeat as above. Keep going until you reach the last............ Alternatively, put all images in as normal - add a text box to the first and copy and edit to the second, third etc. I've used this for up to 200-300 images in a Salon presentation and found it to be the easiest. P.S. Get someone to check it for you afterwards - someone else will see mistakes that you don't. DG

Peter's point number 3 works for me. DG

It's more easily done than described! Take the section WITH music. If you know the number of bars/beats and the number of slides then calculating the beats to each slide is easy. If you have 32 bars of music for 32 slides the beats are four per slide. If you have 64 bars of music for 128 slides then the beats are two per slide. Etc You should change the slide every one beat or two beats or every four beats in a 4/4 section. In a 3/4 section you should change slides every one beat or every three beats. Etc You say that you know the length in bars / beats of music for 400 slides? If the one is divisible by the other - no problems. Put the silent track in to play first and start slide ten at the point where the second track (music) starts - use TIMELINE. Click on slide ten and the last slide (in Timeline) and use "Arrange selected points" in TIMED POINTS. (The end of the last slide needs to be carefully positioned before doing this). That's the simple version! You say that there are variations in tempo and time signature? Each section will have to be treated individually using the method above. Time-wise a slide in a slower tempo section is going to have to be on screen for longer than a slide in a faster tempo section but this will be governed by the number of beats/bars in the section. If the music used has a pronounced waveform then telling exactly where a bar starts SHOULD be easy and allow for manual tweaking if necessary. My tip (from experience) would be - use NO TRANSITION because you are then making it so much easier for yourself to obtain the sync. The change from one slide to the next is very "indefinite" using any sort of transition. When I did a similar excercise recently I started with the piece of music and added the slides as required. DG When I suggested some sort of method for dividing the timeline into bars / beats some time ago it was not thought necessary because not enough people are doing this sort of synchronisation - I would find it invaluable!

Hi Ken,<br><br>Strange - I am getting heaps of mail from elsewhere (including reply notifications) so I'm not completely shut down?<br><br>DG

Ken, The reason I was asking about Anti-Virus was that my seemingly "weak" desktop machine does NOT have Anti-Virus of any sort installed - it is not connected to the Internet. Consequently, I am able to run quite a few programmes without glitches wheras others with much better machines than mine get bogged down. Nik NX2 for instance is a known memory hog but my machine runs it smoothly and quite fast while others with more powerful machines complain about its slowness. I keep coming back to Anti-Virus and such programmes which, whilst necessary for the Internet, seem to slow things down considerably. Where this is an issue turning it off temporarily does not seem to make a difference. The fact that, on my desktop, it has never been there seems to be a deciding factor. Just a thought, DG

Peter, To what extent does Anti-Virus etc play a part during the playing of a PTE EXE file (if at all). DG

Lin, I have now had a chance to try this demo on my Desktop and also read your post #18. I must admit to a little confusion since your Title for this Thread (and post #1) and the contents of post #18 seem to be suggesting different things, but I understand. Anyway, my desktop played the demo equally well (Dual Core 3Ghz Media PC; 2Gb RAM; nVidia 7600 GS with 512RAM). DG

P.S. Runs smooth as silk on my laptop (Dual Core T8100 2.1Ghz - 3Gb Ram - with nVidia 8400GT and 256Graphics Ram). I will try it on my desktop later after I have dug myself out of the snow. DG

I thought that we had decided long ago that the video card was not the only "variable" when it comes to performance? DG