davegee

Peter, I shoot exclusively in RAW and my workflow includes Nikon NX2 and Photoshop. I do not believe that it is irrelevant what colour space you shoot in if you shoot in RAW (it is included in the Metadata). If it were irrelevant the logical thing would be that the option to change from RGB to sRGB would not be available in the camera menu when RAW is set? I have never experienced any colour gradation problems when editing 16 Bit NEF files shot in sRGB and processed in sRGB throughout whether for PTE or for printing. Best wishes, DaveG

With the greatest respect, I fear that Peter S is missing the point here. We are (most of us anyway) here because we are interested in AV and not because we are printers. My experience and my eyes tell me that when I use sRGB images in PTE they look richer and display more depth and look correct when displayed alongside the eqivalent RGB images. The test I advise is: Take an image shot in RGB in-camera and put it through your system making sure that the colour mode/profile is not changed by your RAW converter or Photoshop/Lightroom (whatever) without your knowledge. Save a JPEG without changing the profile as version 1. Change the profile to sRGB and save a JPEG as version 2. Now display both images side by side in a PTE show in Preview. The sRGB version is going to be the "correct" version showing more depth and saturation. A shot taken at the same time in the same lighting conditions as the previous (RGB) version but this time in sRGB and put through an sRGB process (RAW converter / PS / Lightroom etc) is going to look exactly like the version 2 image without the hassle of having to change its colour mode before saving as a JPEG. By all means have your monitor(s) correctly calibrated but that is not relevant to the RGB/sRGB discussion in PTE. Peter's point about ProPhoto is an interesting one, but since my camera does not offer that colour space I don't see how it fits into this discussion. It seems to be something which, once again, printers need to consider and not something which we need for AV. If I want prints from my sRGB images I simply change the colour profile to Fuji_DP2_ProAm, change the resolution to 402 ppi at the size I want, whack them onto a CD, send the CD to ProAm and within a couple of days I get perfect prints delivered to my door at a price I can afford. (And they look exactly the same as my on-screen versions). Best wishes, DaveG

I agree with what Peter said 100% and would ADD just one thing: IF you normally shoot in RGB then CONVERTING THE PROFILE to sRGB is ESSENTIAL when the images are used in PTE. You have to try a side by side comparison to judge for your self. DaveG

Congratulations IGOR!! Another successful release. Could I suggest that you now start a new "Suggestions for next version" thread? Best wishes, DaveG

Hi Lin, You're making far too many assumptions. First you assume that the person is using XP, then that they know how to create a "zipped folder" in Explore. I avoided making any assumptions by being specific about XP. I did not have my Vista Laptop powered up when replying. For the record the procedure is identical in both XP and Vista: Right click (anywhere) and choose New/ Compressed Zipped Folder. Drag any folder/file into the Zipped Folder and it is done. How much easier can it be than clicking on "File" then "Create Backup in Zip?" I wasn't suggesting that either was easier than the other. The original post started off by saying that a TEMPLATE was already in existence. I merely carried on from that point. It's a bit like the guy who, when asking for directions to London, is told: "Ah! If I was going there I wouldn't start from here!" Best wishes, DaveG

Sorry Lin, I can't agree with that and just tried it to prove to myself. All you have to do is create a new Zipped Folder in Explorer (XP) and drag the TEMPLATE FOLDER into it - as simple as that. DaveG

Here's an extract from this document: http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/protect/...music_copyright "Suppose you want to record and sell your own version of Tchaikovsky’s 1812 Overture. This would not present a problem as Tchaikovsky has certainly been dead for over 70 years*, the work itself would now be out of copyright, and available as a work in the public domain. Provided you performed and recorded the work yourself, no infringement would have occurred. * Actual duration may vary due to national laws You would however be justifiably annoyed if someone else simply copied your recording and started selling it themselves. This is where the copyright in the sound recording comes into play. Copyright law recognises the problematic nature of this situation which is unique to sound recordings, and gives sound recordings distinct protection in their own right that is separate from that in the underlying work. The copyright in the sound recording will run for 50 years from the year of recording, or 50 years from date of release if released in that time. Again actual duration may vary slightly from one country to another depending on national laws". DaveG

Would not the Template in a Zipped folder have done the same thing? DaveG

I think(?) it is 50 years over here and that's the reason that the owners of the rights to certain Liverpool groups works are beginning to get VERY itchy and are petitioning for a change in the law. DaveG

Mike, Click on File/ Templates/"Manage Templates". In the window - "Template Folder" - That's where your Template will be saved. That's the link you need. DaveG

Here's a link to an 18 image 180 degree panorama shot handheld and using Manual Exposure, Focus and WB (I always set the camera to 5200K). http://i461.photobucket.com/albums/qq337/g...es/panorama.jpg I tried constructing this in both PTGUI and Adobe's version of stitching software and the result is identical. Incidentally I find Photobucket to be an excellent resource and alternative to MediaFire. DaveG

The poor pixels won't know if they are coming or going!! Not for me, thanks, DaveG

When you are taking images to be used in a panorama they need to be overlapping by a considerable amount i.e. 25% or more so the resulting panorama after stitching 3 (768 high) images together is likely to be around 1300x768 - bearing in mind that when shooting for panoramas portrait format is the best option and gives best results. The stitching would be done at a higher resolution and resized later. To obtain a succesful 3000 pixel wide panorama (768 high) you probably need to shoot something like 8 images with a 25% (or more) overlap in portrait format. Don't use too wide an angle lens - 35mm to 50mm works quite well and I have had success using this setup with up to 18 images. Tripod or monopod is strongly advised but is not essential. Use manual focus, manual exposure and manual AWB to avoid wide variations between images. PTGUI is my prefered stitching software but I've have good results with CS3's built in stitching application. Good luck, DaveG

Ray, If I understand you correctly, that means - "short, fat people"? Or, are you suggesting that the original 1920x1080 images should be squashed to 4:3 and then opened up by applying the 1.33 pixel aspect ratio? DaveG

It should be a "reg.txt" file and all that you need to do is put it in the PTE folder in Program Files and when asked for it, just direct to the PTE folder - don't open it. Are you trying to load a Videobuilder key? DaveG

Scorpion, Good advice. All that's necessary to prove the point is the put two jpegs from the same source image into a PTE show - firstly in RGB mode and then after converting the profile to sRGB (or vice versa). DaveG

Hi Ray, "It is common to use 16:9 images (e.g. 1920x1080 pixels) and produce a 1440x1080 video with a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1.33. Then the player will play the 4:3 video with a 16:9 appearance, which will preserve the aspect ratio of the original images so that it will look just as you intended". What does "with a pixel aspect ratio of 1:1.33" mean? DaveG

It is only natives of Yorkshire, BBC writers and Richard Llewellyn who would say: Not a bad attempt, "look you", at some Yorkshire dialect by an inhabitant of Wales. Well done! DaveG

Eric, If you type some text into O&A then go to Properties you can outline the text font and use your up and down arrows on't' keyboard to step through the different fonts and see how they look on the screen in real time. I find that this is a good enough procedure - would you agree? DaveG

Daniel, In the "Virtual Size of Slide" put 1920x1080 and you will maintain the 16:9 Aspect Ratio instead of "Custom". Your height will be the same - 1080 - and your 4:3 images (Fit To Slide) will fit to the height of your 1920x1080 project. DaveG

Daniel, "My slideshow test : pictures sized to 1440x1080px, slideshow aspect format specified as 4/3. I created a mp4 file hd 1920x1080 medium quality" What happens if the slide show aspect ratio is set to 16:9? You should see the black lines each side of the 4:3 image when the EXE is played back. The 16:9 HD video should also then be the same. DaveG

Ray, I think that it goes without saying that you MUST be able to play it back in real time on the PC / Laptop BEFORE even trying to connect with any kind of LCD TV! However, all other things being equal the EXE is going to better than the HD Video file made from it. If you have to reduce the size of the images to get the EXE to play on a PC Laptop so be it. When you then come to play it on the TV the quality of the EXE is still going to be better than the HD Video file made from the PTE project. and it is more likely to be free of stuttering etc. Playing back a reduced resolution EXE on a HD TV and making it fill the screen is UPSCALING and is not for me. My 26" TV is 1360x768 and I have no problems with this resolution. My desktop monitor is 1920x1200 and my system allows for a reasonable degree of PZR with images of 1920x1200 or greater with no glitches or stuttering. DaveG

Ken, To get SKY Digital Satelite TV over here costs an average of around £20 per month. If you want films and sport it's extra. In either case it is literaly hundreds of channels, some of doubtful value, an awful lot of repeats and all of the available radio channels. HD is extra again (£10) for a limited number of HD channels. You could pay around £50 per month for a package which includes HD. On top of that we still pay an annual TV license fee. FREEVIEW is Digital TV via aerial - a limited number of channels - all you need is a converter for a one off price or a TV with built in tuner. Not all areas currently have Freeview. DaveG

Thanks Ken, I found this site - but he seems to be as confused as the people he is trying to "help"? http://hdtvprofessor.com/ Interesting times ahead? DaveG

Lin, Regarding the impending changeover to Digital it sounds as though you will be going through the same process as we went through some years ago. Initially, although we had "digital" TV it was (and still is) in PAL - 768x576 - format. The PAL picture is then upscaled to whatever resolution the TV is. HD TV arrived fairly recently and more money and a different reciever is required. My understanding is that even though it is being promotoed as HD and that a 1080p compatible TV is required the incoming signal is only 720p. I don't have an HD contract so I don't have first hand experience. If you know in any more detail what you will be getting (when it happens) it would be interesting to to know: First - What they are promising Second - What they deliver Going back to Jeff's original post - the ULTIMATE quality is achieved by playing a PTE EXE file via a HDMI connection to an LCD TV where the resolution of the PTE EXE equals the resolution of the TV. ANYTHING else is second best. DaveG