davegee

Control Panel - Folder Options - File Types. See what JPEG is associated with - if you want it to be CS2/CS3 click on CHANGE and alter it. However, double clicking on a JPEG from within PTE does not have that effect. Right click on a JPEG in the slide list and click on EXPLORER - you have the option to "Edit With Photoshop". Personally, I would never advise this because opening a JPEG in PS, editing it and re-saving involves a further step of compression and hence loss of quality. You SHOULD be going back to the last saved TIFF or RAW file. DaveG

Congratulations, Maureen - you are doing some wonderful work. Anything which gets young people interested and occupied gets my unreserved applause! DaveG

Here's a link to an article worth reading (be sure to watch the videos) - step 4 in particular (Stick to your native resolution). http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-10163_7-5912625-1.html?tag=nav DaveG

I suspect that you are setting "Fullscreen" mode and 4:3? The black rectangle then represents your screen size - your monitor resolution. If you add a 1024x768 to this and set "original" in O&A / Common your image should then be a proportionate size in the middle of the rectangle. "Fit to slide" will fill the screen on your monitor and interpolate the 1024x768 image up to 1600x1200. I have produced a "Monitor Resolution / Aspect Ratio Comparator" for each of the different aspect ratio monitors. If it is of any interest I could e-mail you a copy of the 4:3 version. It will be around 5Mb. Send me a PM with your e-mail address and I will get it to you. DaveG

I would differ with Lin on just one point: When saving the intermediate audio files with fades I would save as WAV and not MP3. The compression applied to MP3 files is cumulative in audio just as it is with JPEG in image files. I would bring the three uncompressed WAV files back in to the AUDACITY project to create the composite - hence only compressing once. DaveG

You need to use something like AUDACITY (free download) or AUDITION which will allow you to assemble the three tracks, cut to the correct length and blended together into one track. Save as a single MP3 and add to your project. Adjust each set of 43 to its section of music in the TIMELINE. I haven't checked your maths - I assume that 43 x 4 is 2m 52s? Alternatively you can create your three 2m 52s tracks with fades using AUDACITY again and add all three tracks, but the collective wisdom at this forum is that you should use just one track. DaveG

Hi Frank, Regardless, I still believe that, for now, I would like to see things that can be easily done utilizing packages such as PS left alone. There are other more pressing things that I think we would all like to see implemented. From your comments here and in your other thread on text animation I take it that what you want is a higher quality version of PSG? DaveG

Totally agree Peter, but I think that the complications arising out of building transitions on objects into the programme is not / are not warranted for something which can be done via PS. I see what you mean though, about combining opacity with transition. I keep PS open while building in PTE and it is simple to go from one to the other to make adjustments to a PSD file for something like this. I see danger in making PTE so complicated (versatile) that beginners can't get a grip of it straight away and dump it for that reason. DaveG

Have you checked your TV book to see what res is supported by the PC input? As I said previously, the HDMI input supports 1360x768 but the PC input only supports 1280x768. So whatever aspect ratio you choose in PTE will show within a 1280x768 screen (on mine). Your 16:9 is fitting within the 1280x768 screen (and being re-sized downwards). If yours is the same as mine and you try a 1280x768 show you should get the full height with black lines to the sides. Put a white line around the image to make sure that you are seeing the full image. DaveG

Maybe I'm also misunderstanding, but isn't the following possible: Slide one - image one one left side (RHS Blank) Slide two - image one LHS and image two RHS Slide three - image two RHS and image three LHS etc. You don't have to use objects - create each slide in PS. Each slide then has its own transition which does not effect the image being duplicated. DaveG

The book with the Sony specifically lists the max res for the PC input as 1280x768. Your TV is probably the same. Let's hope that the PC / HDMI adaptor works and is available soon. You could then create a FULLSCREEN 16:9 show using 1366x768 images and should get ACTUAL PIXELS on the TV. (1360x768 displays a thin line on each side 1366x768 covers the screen perfectly). Unless you laptop supports 1360x768 on its monitor you will have to select the TV only option and black out your monitor. DaveG

Without a HDMI connection you appear to be snookered. A lot of new laptops, particularly but not only Sony, now feature them in order to play Blu-Ray DVDs thro' TVs. The Sony TV has 7 AV inputs, one of which is for HDMI. I have seen DVI / HDMI adaptors but not PC / HDMI - maybe someone else has more info - Conflow? Obviously, if you were in the market for a new laptop, it would be something to consider. DaveG

You need to check the spec of the TV - it will indicate what pixel dimensions to use. My Sony is 1366x768 and I can use these figures to create a fullscreen PTE show when linking my laptop to the tv via HDMI. The laptop output is set to 1360x768. However, although I haven't tried it, the same figures when connecting via the normal PC connection are 1280x768. The secret is to use HDMI if you have it available. I can tell you that the result via HDMI is absolutely stunning and well worth the cost of the cable. DaveG

With or without music. MP3? DaveG

More details: Size of image in pixels? Monitor Res? Full screen or Windowed Mode? DaveG

It is probably irrelevent to THIS discussion but if you are including portrait images in what appears to be a 3:2 aspect ratio show (1024x683) and are not performing any zoom effects the the HEIGHT of the portrait images need be no more than 683. DaveG

You guys certainly have a lot more faith in judges than I do! I agree 100% with Mike's last paragraph. DaveG

I shall pass on that. DaveG

John, Have you ever considered that by accepting "oversized" images and passing the originals to judges you are giving some an unfair advantage? If you were to give a judge an original image 3000 pixels wide and an identical but resized version 1024 wide I'm willing to gamble that the 3000 image would come out on top. Applying the same logic to non-identical images is just as valid. The judge is going to view the originals at "Actual Pixels" in PS and all other factors being equal i.e. composition etc the larger image has the advantage. "A good A3 will always beat a good A4" - see the other thread. If that is a level playing field I'll eat my Hard Rock Cafe mouse mat. Just kidding - I treasure it!! DaveG

Peter and Colin, Peter’s model is an interesting and very valid one, but just as there is no standardisation in projector resolutions at this time there is also no standardisation in competition rules within the various clubs. Consider the case of a club who, like many other clubs, have since before the days of digital competitions given judges the entries up to two weeks before the actual competition. The advantage of this is that all adjudications SHOULD then be “considered adjudications with helpful comments” and not snap decisions based on one viewing. In digital competition this also avoids the need for “holding back” images for further viewing. These clubs then agreed with judges wishes to have the original digital images supplied for viewing in their own packages as well as in PTE EXE files. (Heaven knows why – they never ask for negatives). So the situation is now that the person who puts in “oversized” images has an advantage – more pixels, no re-sizing etc. and the judging is not taking place on a level playing field. Also, Peter’s perceived “handicap” no longer applies because the judging is not taking place on the PTE version but on the original images which have not been subjected, in some instances, to any interpolation whatsoever. AJR is also in the same boat – see his post in the other thread. Colin, when you say:” It is up to the entrant to make sure his image/s are optimised for those parameters, or accept the consequences” in the scenario I describe this does not apply. Remember, in the days of prints and slides, the old saying that a “Good A3 will always beat a good A4”? It is a similar situation. Hence the need, in my scenario, to disqualify or reject oversized images and make sure that a level playing field exists. DaveG

Quick reply: If you mean that you are comparing two images at 1024x768 and 1400x1050 in the same presentaion / preview where both fit to the confinements of a 1024x768 output then I can understand. The 1400x1050 image is being INTERPOLATED DOWN to 1024 width (or is it 768 height?) and therefore a loss of quality/detail is only to be expected. If you display both at "ACTUAL PIXELS" or "ORIGINAL" then there should be no quality losses but you will lose some of the 1400 image. However, since the 1024 version has already been compressed/interpolated to a greater degree than the 1400 version aren't they going to look different anyway? DaveG

Hi Peter, There was something written a long time ago which suggested that you could get into trouble by using a one pixel line - I can't remember the context. Having said that I have been creating a Monitor Resolution / Aspect Ratio Comparator and I just ran it again. On my 1280x1024 flat screen monitor it is PERFECT - with a 3 pixel line all around the images (same card as you). We had a similar problem with a projector which was solved by altering the "frequency" setting in the projector (strange but true). You should be able to run the same image in Windows Picture and Fax Viewer to see if you get the same result. I just did and it is, once again, PERFECT (no different to when viewed via PTE). DaveG

Hi John, Once again in this posting you have failed to qualify what you mean by: "PtE v5.5 appears not to display a 1024 x 768 image precisely" Could you enlarge/explain this? DaveG

John, I should have said: WITH PTE, you can't have it both ways. Secondly, as a competitor, I think you are WRONG about submission sizes. If your rules say 1024x768 then that is what submissions SHOULD be (It is SO MUCH easier for the organiser). Next year there will be a variety of submission sizes 1024x768, 1400x1050 and 1920x1080 and I eagerly await watching the chaos that this is going to cause. I repeat: Only once would you have to disqualify/reject a submission - it would not happen with the same person twice. I'm afraid it is the only way to go - it worked at our club where we are getting in excess of 100 entries per monthly competition (I was not instrumental in the administration of the ruling but welcomed it). I, like Peter, would like you to clarify your statement that "PtE does not display 1024 accurately"? If Windows and Irfanview do EXACTLY what you want then why not continue with those? DaveG

You can't have it both ways. "Fit to screen/slide" will do all that you require EXCEPT for displaying the smaller sized images - they would have to be re-sized by changing to "Original" in COMMON. "Disable Scaling...." will do all that you require EXCEPT for resizing images larger than 1024x768. They would have to be re-sized by setting "fit to screen/slide" in COMMON. If you stipulate up to 1024x768 then anything bigger SHOULD BE DISQUALIFIED!!!!!!!!!! It is usually the people with a string of letters behind their name who "test the system" by putting these large images in. Once disqualified they will usually not do it a second time. Problem solved! See: http://www.gwynfa.org.uk/index.php?file=mi...s/cms&id=21 and: http://www.gwynfa.org.uk/index.php?file=mi...s/cms&id=48 (On the other hand I did once ask the very same question as you of Igor: that is to have a mode which would set "original" UP TO the resolution of the monitor being used to view and thereafter "fit to slide". No one else seemed to want it and therefore did not reply - Igor declined to comment). DaveG