davegee

Barry, You raise an extremely interesting point. Does an image from a full-frame 22mp DSLR suffer less from JPEG artifacts than an image from a 12.3mp APS-C DSLR? Anyone prepared to donate a full-frame 22mp RAW image for testing (or know where there is one available for download)? DaveG

Barry is correct when he says that CONTENT is the important thing, but I would like to pose the following question: When anyone (not just Barry) says something like "I have been praised for the quality and sharpness of my work" - what would the reaction have been if they (the people who did the praising) had seen the quality 12 version instead of the quality 6 version? I'm involved in a similar discussion at the moment regarding the showing of competition work in a compressed format instead of at actual pixels. Everyone seeing the work says "marvellous work" but they haven't seen the originals! If they had seen the originals at actual pixels they might have said "B****y marvellous work" and justice would have been done to the original authors. I always feel that it's a bit of a put down when I'm presented with work which could have improved on issues like image quality - "It's good enough for the punters" (My words) DaveG

OK, maybe PS Quality 12 is a little OTT but, anyone not being able to see a visible difference between a quality 12 and a quality 6 image side by side at actual pixels needs to pay a visit to a decent optician. If, on the other hand, quality 6 does it for you, then you should carry on saving at that quality. Also, if the guys who save at quality 12 have systems which will handle it, that's OK too. DaveG

Hi Andrew, I think that you are on the right track, but I would offer a couple of suggestions: When uploading to Mediafire ZIP the EXE file? The book effect seems to be "backwards"? The impression is of the "spine" of the book being on the right hand side and not the more normal left hand side. Your show ends abruptly on the "CREDITS" title page. Nice images of a place I visited a few years ago. DaveG

I have had a couple of notifications in the last 24 hours and on each occasion they were SINGLE notifications - no duplication. DaveG

Eric, I don't really understand your final statement/question but......... If you take a 3000x2000 image from a digital camera and resize it to suit the three most common laptop/computer configurations you will get the following: 1024x682.666666 for the 1024x768 projector. 1400x933.333333 for the 1400x1050 projtor. 1620x1080 for the 1920x1080 projector. You may notice that the 1920x1080 is the only format which allows for a 3:2 resized image in WHOLE pixels? You mentioned a 1024x576 projector - I've never come across one but a 3:2 image resized for this format would be 864x576. I have ALWAYS worked on the basis that Projector Resolution = Laptop NATIVE Resolution = Image Resolution. The only time to deviate from this is when PZR is applied to an image. DaveG

Eric, I'm afraid that you are not thinking straight. Consider a 2:3 portrait image. On a 4:3 1400x1050 projector that's a 700x1050 image. On a 16:9 1920x1080 projector that's a 720x1080 image. The 16:9 format allows you to get more pixels per foot on screen for ANY aspect ratio image at actual pixels. The figures for a 16:9 image on the two different projectors are as follows: 1400x788 for the 4:3 1400x1050 projector (at actual pixels) - 1,103,200 pixels. 1920x1080 for the 1920x1080 projector (at actual pixels) - 2,073,600 pixels. If you consider an 8 foot wide image that's 175 pixels per foot for the 1400x1050 projector and 240 pixels per foot for the 1920x1080 projector. DaveG

1) In "File Panel" used slides names are in BOLD - unused slides names are in normal. 2) Try using the "Fullscreen view of Slide List" to sort images. DaveG

Please forgive my late entry into the discussion - any opinions are my own and I wouldn't want to force them on anyone. What size slide show should I make? And then Why ?.......... As a secondary point, do you like to fill your screen with the slide show, irrespective of the resolution of that screen? Like myself Barry you have 1920x1200 (16:10) monitors and in this respect your decsion is made for you. If you are making shows for your own consumption then 1920x1200 (16:10) is the only way to go. The downside is that, whilst "static" images are 1920x1200 any PZR requires a larger file. If you want keep your camera's 3:2 aspect ratio then a small space between the outside edge of the monitor and the edge of the 3:2 images with a slight shadow. I lke to fill the screen and also like to see a white line around images regardless of whether they "fill the screen" or are window mounted. JPD has shown us that it is possible to create a show at 1920x1200 (16:10) and by just changing a couple of elements (globally) change the whole thing from a 16:10 show to a "Fit to screen" show in 4:3, 5:4 3:2 or any other format you wish in a couple of seconds. The background changes size to compensate and the white line also assumes the desired aspect ratio. I hasten to add that this has to be done by the producer when creating EXE files and and not the viewer and at this stage is not automatic. Other considerations are Projector Resolution/Aspect Ratios. The only choice out there at this time for anyone upgrading from 1024x768 is (IMHO) 1920x1080 (16:9) and this conflicts slightly with your monitor resolution. I have just finished a presentation for the Welsh Photographic Federation and did it at 1920x1080 to suit their new projector. Because it will be distributed to a variety of clubs etc and be viewed on a variety of different monitors/projectors I had to make sure it "fits to screen" and that all elements stay in exactly the same place on all resolutions/aspect ratios. So far no problems. The bottom line is that YOUR monitor resolution/aspect ratio should determine what you produce. Your images should be the same resolution as YOUR monitor (unless you go for "window mounting"). You CAN adapt your work to suit other aspect ratios and in your line of work is, I suppose, desirable. DaveG

With respect Ken, that doesn't answer the question posed here. CAN 5.6 be used for basic shows as a replacement for 4.49 / 5.5 or is there something (in basic mode) which requires more "engine power" to do the SIMPLE tasks? Forget about the complexities of the added features and the unintuitive interface for a moment (I don't necessarily agree with the unintuitive bit but........). DaveG

Without disagreeing with ANYTHING that has been said could I perhaps pose Eric's question / query / problem in a slightly different way? Is there any difference between using 5.6 and using 5.5 (or even 4.49) IF none of the bells and whistles of 5.6 (basic operation) are used and would the 5.6 version run any slower on any given machine? Having a machine which copes with all/most of what you throw at it puts you in a position where you are not able to tell just where the line is drawn. I would suggest that the "line" is different for each and every one of us. It does not seem to be a level playing field. It comes back to a recent question which, to my mind, was not answered in full: Will 5.6 suit all levels of experience (and hardware if used in BASIC mode) or is there a case for keeping 4.49 and/or 5.5? DaveG

I recently invited all to participate in creating something of this nature - no takers! DaveG

Hi Eric, "If someone would come up with a short test show using the features of the latest version of PTE, as requested months ago, this would eliminate some of the problems people have when up-grading". I have come to believe that having someone else to do this and then trying it on your own machine is meaningless. I honestly believe that you have to do this for yourself using the resolution of your setup as a basic starting point. I have tried to drive my system as hard as possible and have yet to find a set of parameters which cause it problems. However, I have tried other peoples shows which did give rise for concern. Why? DaveG

Eric, Your "problem" interests me. Did you have both the laptop monitor AND the projector on at the same time? Did you try it with the laptop monitor OFF and have just the projector active? DaveG

Frankly Xaver, I don't know what Abdol is requesting. In Synch'ed mode the music should stop - it's logical. In UN-Synch'ed mode the user might be able to choose whether the music stops or continues. If that is what he is requesting then OK. I think that in UN-Synch'ed mode there is a case for the music to continue in some instances. DaveG

In the case where music is NOT synch'ed I would prefer to see an OPTION that pausing the show pauses the music. There are cases where pausing the show WITHOUT pausing the music are also valid!! DaveG

It might be a good idea to run a security check on your computer? You should NEVER click on a link like that! I hope that you did not contract anything serious from the encounter. DaveG

I have recieved a PM this morning from a New Memeber (zero posts) which contained only a LINK saying PLEASE HELP. It could possibly be genuine or a scam OR it could be MALICIOUS! I did not click on the link to find out and would advise against anyone else recieving similar doing so. Anyone else recieve one? DaveG

When changing computer etc use the Create Template OR the Create Backup in ZIP feature. All lnks and Paths will then be maintained. To do it the hard way go to O&A / Properties / Picture and you can change the path there. DaveG

I liked the sepia toning and the subtle colour popping. Beautiful crisp images - nice portrait of the banjo player. Excellent choice of closing shot. I felt that the tempo of the images could be raised a little - either more images or shorter music track. I also felt that the "frame" was a little fussy - the titles, by the way run out of the frame when viewing on my 1920x1200 monitor. I would have liked to have been told what the ideal viewing resolution was? Excellent. DaveG

If there's silence at the end of the first track and silence at the beginning of the second then that might account for it. Once again - a case for JOINING your WAV files in Audacity/Audition and eliminating silences before saving as MP3. DaveG

Jeff, 2 Gb of RAM on a VISTA machine COULD be considered as BARE MINIMUM! DaveG

MPEG2 / MPEG4 will work. The "Create Video for PC and MAC" option produces an mp4 file - beware of having it too big - 4mins at 1024x768 at high quality is around 18Mb. So, drop the size to 800x600 and vary the quality until you are happy and it MIGHT work. I just tried it for you and similar to Ron's experience elsewhere got an error message when trying to open by double-clicking. By opening MPC and then pointing it at the mp4 it worked fine. DaveG

...... and they probably will not allow exe files for the same reason as, by and large, you cannot send an exe as an e-mail attachment. It's an application and potentially harmful - they will not differentiate between harmful exe files and benign PTE exe files. Brian will probably explain it better. DaveG

Ron, To get things going, I assume that you are double-clicking on the file in the hope that it will open up in something or other. Have you tried opening up something or other and pointing it towards your AVI? Try the prog that Igor recommends - Media Player Classic Homecinema. DaveG