davegee

If you want to BACK UP as opposed to SAVE, would it not be better to call it AUTO BACK UP? Save would then do what it says - SAVE - and AUTO BACK UP (if Igor could configure it that way) would back up to a user nominated folder (or NOT - that's important too). Having multiple versions of the said back ups COULD create a problem but if you have unlimited HDD space - why not? DaveG

Hi Swede, I agree with Ron, great images which remind me of my (short) stay in Thailand a few years ago. One small glitch - on my 1280x1024 screen the image of the (Chinese?) gong grows behind the frame and eventually shows between the frame and the black background. DaveG

I have never constructed a 16:9 show and made a DVD but, assuming you are making a PAL DVD for instance, your original 16:9 image regardless of the original pixels is interpolated down to 720x341.0526 etc to make the AVI. When you play it back on your 16:9 TV via a PAL DVD Player your 720x341.0526 etc pixels are interpolated back up to 1920x1080 to show full screen. That's almost a 300% increase in pixel width and height. What does that do for the quality of the images? DaveG

Igor, I noticed that, when installing Beta 8 from a memory key, when it finished the installation the "Choose version to import settings from" box defaulted to "Developer". Installing from HDD the default was "5.5.7". I don't know if that is an installation problem? Both installations worked OK - first on my laptop and then on my desktop. DaveG

I ran AVG this morning and it did not report anything. DaveG

Hi Cor, I must admit to not understanding your description of how your method works. Could I point out that you were getting problems with running my method whereas others could? My laptop is brand new with a spec similar to yours. Could I also point out that I/we are trying to do this with EXE files. Am I correct that you are starting your sequence from the PTE file? Can you post an example using ONLY EXE files? Oh, and the other thing - I don't want to have to revert back to a previous version - I am using 5.5.7. I hope that we can work together on this to find a solution suitable for all. DaveG

Hi Peter, I thought that if Ian said it would work then all of the troubles would be over. Unfortunately, having just tried it on my Vista Home Premium laptop it does not work. Is it possible that Ian has tried two or more things at the same time and that he has jumped on the "wrong" solution? DaveG

Which version?

Hi Igor, I have to agree with Barry - it would make more sense if both of the music options were left unticked. The default would then presumably be "play once". DaveG

Thanks Igor, The grid will, I'm sure, be a great help to many, myself included and I look forward to trying it out. DaveG

Hi Peter, There is a temporary solution for Vista, until Igor can sort it out. Using my Menu Demo as a trial I created a black Powerpoint slide with a large black autoshape hyperlinked to the root menu of my demo. Run the Powerpoint show and click on the "invisible" hyperlink. Autohide the task bar and move the mouse cursor well out of the way and the demo runs quite smoothly with no flashes to the desktop. It is probably flashing back to the Powerpoint slide but because it is black you cannot tell. Not very elegant but it works. DaveG

I'm confused as usual! I thought that what Barry meant was not to POST-PROCESS your images to a size bigger than that required for PTE? I'm a RAW shooter and I suspect that barry is too (?) therefore what I get is the FULL pixel count out of the camera - in my case 24 MB files. There is no alternative to this when shooting RAW. These images are then re-sized to suit the amount of zoom I use (if any) and selectively sharpened as necessary. If the sharpening produces Moire then I go back and alter the sharpening until it (the Moire) disappears. DaveG

Thanks Barry, Knowing how much you care about the quality of the images, I thought that aspect might have had something to do with it. Interesting poll - at present my desktop is attached to a 1280x1024, my new laptop (still in its box) is a 1280x800 and my old laptop (soon to be retired) has a 1024x768 screen but is connected to and capable of running a 1280x1024 monitor. I want to get a 1400x1050 monitor in readiness for the next round of projectors which seem to be heading in that direction. DaveG

Thanks Ken, But if I run the 1280x1024 version on a 1024x768 screen I can still see the whole show. So maybe Barry could throw a little light on it? DaveG

Colin, Just seeking clarification - don't want to start a war! When you said - "The projector resized the image to 768 high" - Is this not the same as saying "The projector Interpolated the image down to 768 high"? If this is the case, then "pixels" (I'm treading on dangerous ground here) must have been lost and you are then not showing what the author intended. This is where I advocate "Actual Pixels" throughout the chain - 1024x768 show for 1024x768 projector. I'm glad that Barry joined in, it gives me the opportunity to congatulate him on another fine show. (The quality of the images really is superb!) ........and also to ask him why he chose to make both 1024x768 and 1280x1024 versions available again? DaveG

Hi Henri, I tried to answer as best I could some time ago. With regard to your laptop and its connection to a projector or external monitor, it is POSSIBLE (?) that your graphics card will support the 1920x1080 format. For instance I can see that my NVIDIA 7600 GS card will support monitors and/or projectors up to and including 2048x1536. If the graphics card in your laptop does the same then you will not have to replace your laptop. Let's hope my terminology is correct! DaveG

Yeah, Let's wait and see who wins the next match? Best wishes, DaveG

Actual Pixels - a Photoshop Terminology - it's "always" been there and gives the best representation of what an image will look like when projected by a projector whose stated resolution is the same as the images stated resolution (in pixels). As for "trying to "ad hoc" adjust your 1024x768 Images in a way as to give you the best 'quality-compromise' when these are Projected on to a Screen. Then you are trying to develop a 'procedure' whereby you can repeat the process at will in the future." I am not trying to develop this approach - I have always done it. DaveG

Brian, Could I ask - "Is this a Rugby thing?" Because if it is let me say that if Wales hadn't won the tournament I would have supported Ireland all the way!! DaveG

What do I mean by ACTUAL PIXELS? In my terminology one of my images which Photoshop tells me in "Image Size" is 1280x1024 pixels fills my 1280x1024 monitor when shown via a PTE show constructed with the image mode set to "original" in a Windowed Mode PTE show with the window set to 1280x1024 (without border). In the same show a 1024x768 image set up in exactly the same way would take up proportionately less space in the middle of the screen. In the same show a 1400x1050 pixel image set up the same way would only show part of the image with a little cropped from all sides. If this 1400x1050 image were to be set to Image Mode=Fit to screen it would be Interpolated down to fit the width (?) of the screen with black lines top and bottom. I can't explain it any better than that Brian. DaveG

Hi Brian, You seem to be talking about things which are beyond our control. I can control the pixel dimensions of my images (e.g. 1024x768) and try to "match" them with the "pixel dimensions" of the projector/monitor which shows my images and I know what LOOKS right and what looks "degraded or pixilated". I definitely do not want any 1024x768 image of mine shown full screen projected via a 1400x1050 projector. I know what it looks like and don't want it. Maybe this works for all of the WRONG reasons, but it works and others SEEM to agree. DaveG

Hi again Peter, You said: "For single Still Images I'm with you all the way!" Could that be interpreted to mean that you disagree with my theories regarding zooming etc? DaveG

Hi Peter, I think I knew where you were coming from!! DaveG

Hi Peter, I think I established earlier in the discussion that I was approaching this from a "photographic" point of view rather than an "AVer's" point of view. When applying the same logic to av I have always advocated that the pixel dimensions of a ZOOMED image, for instance, needs to be in direct proportion to the zoom percentage. (Tech-speak!!) i.e. in a 1024x768 show, if the image is zoomed IN to 200% then, for highest quality result, that image needs to be 2048x1536 (and no more) to start with. The in between bit is unavoidable. When the zoom finishes, if it finishes, it should display an ACTUAL pixels image. This way the interpolation process is always DOWNWARDS - never upwards. Same thing applies to transitions - unavoidable. But that is the AV approach - my approach to THIS discussion is from a STILL IMAGE point of view. DaveG

Too much tech-speak!! Let your eyes be your judge. The advice, when editing and image, is that you should view it at ACTUAL pixels on your monitor, regardless of the size (resolution) of your monitor. Viewing an image at anything other than ACTUAL pixels means that you are viewing an INTERPOLATED image and are not seeing what it truly looks like. Forget about 100Kb images against 2Mb images - that's a different discussion. Applying this to the computer monitor/projector chain I want the same thing - ACTUAL pixels. If I submit an image which is 768x576 and it is projected FULL SCREEN on a 1024x768 projector I can see the difference. It is interpolated up and therefore degraded/pixilated - call it what you like. The same thing applies to interpolating downwards. At our club, when digital competition began, the "committee" wanted the images presented so that all images were shown against a grey background. This meant that someone who submitted a 1024x768 image saw that image at something less than 1024x768. The problem was that someone had submitted an image in which the he/she had inserted single white pixels to represent stars in an otherwise clear night sky. The end result was that most of the stars disappeared because you can't interpolate a SINGLE pixel downwards. ACTUAL PIXELS is what I want. DaveG