davegee

Isn't a white rectangle made in Photoshop at a few pixels larger than the image and saved as a JPEG not an image as well? One single white JPEG made at screen res should be all the is needed - it can then be resized (even distorted) to suit any image and animated if necessary. It would not have to be a high quality large file. DaveG

Too much detail,Too much detail!! DaveG

Your testing is far more comprehensive than mine - no doubt your Yorkshire ancestry coming into play? DaveG

I PARTLY agree with Alan. I tried this immediately after installing 5.6.4 and wheras in 5.6.3 it was necessary to click on an arrow twice directly after pausing it is now only necessary to click once to, for instance , go back one slide. However it is still necessary to click an arrow twice to change direction. DaveG

Den, Ken is trying his hardest to keep up with it but it has a lot to do with the fact that people can become members and post immediately - this needs to be addressed! The other problem is that he is probably asleep right now due to the time difference. Give him time - he really is doing his best. DaveG

Colin and Peter, In PAUSE mode pressing either of the arrows does not resume play. The first press appears to do nothing and the show remains in pause mode whilst the second press takes you backwards or forwards remaining in pause mode. Pressing back arrow followed by forward arrow does nothing - the two presses have to be in the same direction. DaveG

Hi Cedric, I have checked this in 5.6.4 and when in pause mode it seems to take TWO presses of the left or right arrows to change direction of navigation. Once the direction of navigation is changed (i.e. forward to backwards or vice versa) a single press of the arrow button will continue in the current direction. When not in pause mode a single press in either direction will work. DaveG

Cedric, Whilst I agree that there is something not quite right about the navigation using left / right arrows, could I urge you to upgrade to 5.6.4? Bringing up problems with older versions or Betas is non productive and any problems that you find in 5.6.1 COULD have already been fixed by 5.6.4. DaveG

You need to go to the slides view and then you can rt click on the slide that you want to copy and then paste. You can also do it in the Fullscreen View of Slide List. Ctrl C and Ctrl V work OK for me - make sure that you have a slide in the slide list highlighted before trying it. But not in the Timeline. DaveG

I have covered this numerous times. If you make an MPEG4 of your show at 1920x1080, or 1366x768 (depending on the res of your tv) you will get a show which "equals" the corresponding show on your laptop/desktop in terms of quality and aspect ratio. The caveat to this is that the said laptop/desktop should be connected to the tv via an HDMI connection. If you only have DVI you will need audio leads as well. The PC will set to the same res as the TV. Make the PTE show at Fullscreen - 16:9 and insert your 4:3 images (either 1080 pixels high or 768 pixels high) and they will then fill the HEIGHT of the TV screen with black bands to left and right. Using images which are 3072x2304 pixels is OVERKILL unless you are doing a lot of ZOOMING. They only need to be 1080 OR 768 pixels high for this application and, providing that you do the interpolation downwards properly in Photoshop or similar, you will see absolutely no difference in quality but a big difference in the performance. Don't assume because your tv says "HD" on the front that it is 1920x1080 - check the manual. Usually TVs over 26"-30" are 1920x1080 and "most" 26" TVs (or smaller) are 1366x768. PC Monitors can be 16:10 or 16:9 - I haven't come across a TV in the 16:10 aspect ratio. DaveG

You have placed a keyframe at the "end of slide". If you change the slide time is it not logical that it should stay at the "end of slide"? DaveG

Are you able to create the text you require in Photoshop? If so save as a transprent PNG file and use that in PTE. Not a real solution - more of a workaround. DaveG

Does your laptop resolution equal your projector resolution? Try running the projector with the laptop monitor OFF - it might not cure it but it might make things a little smoother. It will be Fn and Fxx key. DaveG

Well put Mike! I have been doing things in a rather different order regarding your last 5 out 6 points but it might be worth experimenting with a change of order. Your point about Luminosity is also relevent as I am seeing a consistent change in luminosity when using SFW between original and output (lighter). I will continue to use my little action to change from 16 bit to 8 bit, flatten the image and change from RGB to sRGB before "saving as" but with caution. DaveG

mbskels, I believe that you may have a point about SFW! I described the SFW "2-up" method because I thought that it best described the differences without having to insert the images into PTE to see the differences. Leaving SFW aside for a moment, there is a definite shift in colour when an RGB image is saved as a JPEG without first changing to sRGB and using "save as". If the image is changed to sRGB then the process of "save as" JPEG does not introduce a colour shift. Side by side viewing in PTE makes the differences obvious, particularly in blue skies. This applies to un-edited images. DaveG

No Paul, ....and possibly the answer as to why is that I shoot in sRGB in camera and when this is changed to RGB in NX2, no colour shift takes place because RGB is a wider colour space. Any alterations I make in NX2 or PS are possibly going to take colours outside of the sRGB space - I don't know for sure. It seems likely that any changes to a blue sky are going to be influenced because that's where the differences are (to me) most evident when changing to JPEG. Changing from RGB to sRGB before saving as JPEG doesn't seem to influence the colours that much, but the process of changing from TIF to JPEG does have an effect on colours especially blues. I would emphasise that I am refering to images (JPEGS) introduced into PTE or the Web - none of this refers to images for printing. These are purely my observations - nothing technical. DaveG

Paul, I don't get the same result as you. No matter what version of Photoshop going back to PS6 I have always had the same result as described above. Change to sRGB immediately before going to "Save for the Web.." - the before and after will always show "identical" colour in the "2-up" display. The saved JPEG (sRGB) when viewed in PTE always looks like the sRGB version before saving. If I don't change from RGB to sRGB then the saved JPEG will display a different colour in the "after" version of the "2-up" display and also when the JPEG is used in PTE. I always use a blue sky to judge whether there is a change in colour and this is where I think it will be most pronounced if the change to sRGB is not done. I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I can definitely say that I must have been doing it consistently wrong since PS6, PS7, CS, CS2, CS3 and now CS4. DaveG

Paul, I always shoot in sRGB in camera and process in RGB. There's a reason for this, but it is irrelevent here. The process for creating a JPEG for PTE is as follows. (For printing it is different). NX2 converts the RAW file to RGB and I do my initial PP (as much as possible) before sending to CS4 as an RGB TIF file for final processing, cropping etc. (My default colour space in NX2 and CS4 is RGB). Two things need to be done before saving as JPEG: 1) Convert to 8 bit 2) Convert back to sRGB This can be done manually but I choose to create an action which I assign to the F4 key and it converts to 8 Bit, changes the colour profile to sRGB and opens the "Save for the web..." dialogue ready for making final adjustments to JPEG quality and assessing any JPEG artifacts by using the "2-up" option. It also has the advantage of showing immediately if there are any (accidental) colour issues. I find that a clear blue sky is usually a dead giveaway. 1 Button press and it is done. Save the JPEG and in PTE the sRGB version will look identical to the RGB version in CS4. DaveG

potwnc, Images don't HAVE TO BE sRGB for PTE or the web. However, if you compare the RGB images saved as JPEG with the originals (side by side) you will see a difference in the colour between the originals and the JPEGs (mainly in the skies). PTE shows made up of RGB JPEGs will, I'm pretty sure, look magnificent but will not display the same colour characteristcs as the originals when viewed side by side. Please see my previous post (#5) and, if you are so disposed, try it for yourself. The OP saw the difference and was looking for an explanation. DaveG

Agreed Tom, It is not possible to set the Zoom for the "x" scale to "0". It is also not possible to set the "Size in Pixels" to "0" in "Size.....of Parent". DaveG

Paul, Images need to be sRGB for PTE and for uploading to the web. To see the difference it makes, use "Save for the Web..." and use an RGB image. Then set the interface to "2-up" - you will then see the difference between the original and the JPG when saved. If you change to sRGB before "Save for the Web..." there is no difference between the "2-up" images (colour-wise). DaveG

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=64268 DaveG

I have been able over the last 24 hours to do some comparisons of the cameras I have owned over the last few years and in a totally non-scientific way try to ascertain the differences (if any) when their images are saved as JPEGs in PS. METHODOLOGY The images from my Nikon D70, D200 and D300 cameras were from my archives and the D3x image was downloaded from the Internet. In anticipation of JRR’s question I thought it best to stick with one brand. Using NX2 I was able to retrospectively change the RAW data in each of the files to Neutral Picture Control and Sharpening OFF (no one sharpens their skies – do they?). No other changes were made to any of the images. All four images started off on an equal footing – the D3x image was already Neutral Picture Control and Sharpening Off. After sending to PS each image was resized to 1920x1200 using the crop tool so that the longest side of each (landscape) image became 1920 pixels wide. After changing the MODE from 16 Bits to 8 Bits and changing the Colour Profile to sRGB I then used “Save For The Web” so that an instant comparison was available between the original image and the final JPEG at varying quality settings. THE RESULTS Starting with the D70 (3008x200 pixels) and concentrating on areas of continuous tone (sky at the horizon) the pixilation was severe at quality 50 (quality 6 in “Save as”?) and became acceptable at quality 80-90. The D200 image (3872x2592 pixels) produced better results with pixilation being evident at quality 50 and being acceptable at quality 70. The D300 image (4288x2848 pixels) was even better and produced minimal pixilation at quality 50 which disappeared at quality 60. The D3x image (6048x4032 pixels) had no sky in it but I was able to concentrate on large areas of continuous tone and the interface between a light tone and a dark tone. I could detect absolutely no pixilation at all at quality 50. CONCLUSIONS It now becomes obvious to me that quality issues are not solely dependent on Photoshop’s ability to save to JPEG but the combination of different camera’s images and Photoshop’s save as JPEG function. My “obsession” with quality began when I had the D70 and became aware of the “problem” without actually understanding the issues. I continued to produce maximum quality JPEGs when I bought my D200 and D300 as precautionary measures. Having carried out this experiment I now believe that I could relax my quality issues a little and (with my current setup) accept quality 80-100 without worrying too much. However, there are still a lot of D70s and similar cameras out there as well as cameras with even smaller sensors. To give “blanket” advice about quality issues would be foolish without knowing what camera the person receiving the advice has. At the upper end of the quality scale saying that quality 100 (12) is advisable is fairly safe. But, with respect, saying that quality 50 (6) is acceptable without knowing the camera statistics would be, in my mind, a foolish statement. Now, how much is that D3x again? DaveG

Hi Barry, Thanks for the file. I suppose I could have found one somewhere on the net as I did last evening with a D3x file. I have done some checks with images from a succession of my own cameras from the last few years and the results (non-scientific; using purely my eyesight) are interesting to me. More of that later today. DaveG P.S. To Jim - could you tell us what camera that image came from? It tends to tie in with my test results.

It would be very interesting from my point of view. So, yes please - something with plenty of clear blue sky. DaveG