Peter S

Well that's what I call a quick response. The "cut transitions" is infinitely better than my work around. Thanks very much Igor at al. Kind regards Peter

Barry, Did you try what I suggested? It does not actuallydelete the transitions but it does move them all out of the way, to the right hand end of the time line. You can then put them in exactly the place you want as you did previously by listening to the music and clicking New Transition. It's not that different is it? I do agree it would be much better to have a single delete transition key but it is not impossible to achieve the result that you want just a bit more fiddly. Peter

Barry Here's a bit of a work around. Set the time interval to a very small time say 100ms. select all the slides in the timeline. Move them to the end of the music. Hit space bar to start the music. Click on New Transition wherever you want the second slide to appear and continue clicking New Transition to add all other slides. Peter

Peter/Barry, When I tried "Cut Transition" with say slide 2 selected in the timeline it simply moved transition 2 along the timeline to where transition 3 was previously. I took up the challenge and have been unable to find anyway of deleting all the transitions so you can add slides while listening to the music or watching the waveform. I tried to import points from another project that was blank ie no transitions but that was a failure too! Peter

Hi Jim, I too enjoyed this show. I liked the layout, the very gentle pace which matched the mood of the music and the fact that there was always something interesting on the screen. I would have liked to know where the music came from. I noticed the same size problem that Barry mentioned. The first set of images had a border around the outside of around 3/8 inch (9mm ish) and the second set were right up to the edge of my screen (1280 x 1024). Did you sharpen each of these images individually? I ask because some seemed a little soft and I was not sure if some had been oversharpened or tor if the highlights were slightly overexposed in some of the images. Small points really given the overall impact which I thought was very good. My wife and I will be visiting the area some time this year and I hope I can catch the mood as well as you have done. Kind regards Peter

Some very memorable images in both these sequences. "Tuned" is perhaps a very important word in all these discussions about quality of images. I have seen various figures quoted for the difference in sensitivity between the eye and a digital sensor but there seems some general acceptance that the eye can see some 18 to 20 stops difference, and very rapidly changes its "aperture" to make allowances, while the sensor sees around 9 stops and the camera settles on a fixed aperture. If a presenter wants to show the viewer of a single print or a slide show something similar to the scene that they saw with their own eyes then they have to make some "adjustment" if there is more than a 9 (some may say 7) stop variation in the contrast. The adjustment may be by the use of filters or via Photoshop. The bottom line is that "realism" is NOT achieved by simply reproducing the image recorded by the sensor. Neither was this the case with film - a little dodging here a little burning there! The same applies to some extent with a wide angle view and cropping. There is a discussion on one of the Canon forums as to which lens represents the closest picture to the one seen by the eye. Many seem to suggest 50mm others point out that the eye constantly scans the view while the lens takes a single view. We also all see colours slightly differently. Some of us even spell the word in different ways! We are always left with somewhat subjective judgments and adjustments. Most of us can however tell if an image is out of focus or blurred and in my view if we wouldn't print it it does not have a place in a public slide show. Image quality is important when presenting to a wide audience. If the only picture I have of my great grandfather is blurred I'll still hang on to it. It's a great memory but that's a different story. Kind regards Peter

May I suggest that anyone wishing to make unpleasant comments to another forum member does it through personal messages and NOT in public on the message board. Or better still not at all. It does not matter who started it. Let's just stop it now. Bye the way I don't consider criticism on any aspect of a show posted for comment as "unpleasant" as I am sure those making the observations intend them to be constructive. Peter

Hi Ken, Good memory! Yes it is a further development of that earlier work. (I gave up on rolling balls.) It took me some time to realize the potential of a "3D" approach rather than a flat plan view. I created the hoops as PNGs so you can actually see the balls run through the hoops which is nice. As John says this may have potential application for quite a few sports. The objective of the posting was just to demonstrate the concept. I have quite a bit more material with a menu, instructions on using the navigation bar and/or keyboard to move around a replay various sections. This starts with a simple explanation of the court and the game and I intend to build it into a complete guide but it is quite time consuming particularly matching up the sound with the visual elements. Kind regards Peter

This is a small download (5.2MB) to provide an unusual example (I think) of an application for PTE. Now don't all laugh but... I play croquet. I became very frustrated trying to follow instructions printed in black and white with balls that just sat on a page. So I set about producing a guide in colour with moving balls, a commentary and a perspective view of the court. It is not what PTE was originally intended for but it works quite well. I could improve the realism by using non linear motion and have done that elsewhere. This is just a small section to show the idea and to seek any suggestions as to how this could be improved. Sorry if you find the subject of little interest it's only 3 minutes and 7 seconds! Download from Mediafire http://www.mediafire.com/?4xtdenrk7ew Kind regards Peter

Hi Patrick, I also enjoyed your show. I spent a couple of years living in Den Haag and your images brought back good memories of visits to Amsterdam. I agree with those who commented on the dark shadow areas and would have thought a bit of masking in Photoshop could have improved things a bit. I had a bit of a smile at your comment "If you strongly darken the room where you are running the sequence, you will see that there are a lot, easily viewed, details in the dark shadows." You don't want to change your screen resolution to watch Barry's shows but you want us to draw our curtains to watch yours mmm! :lol: The misty scenes contrasted nicely with the bright sunny days and the music change was just right Kind regards Peter

We have had a good variety of shows posted recently and from these it seems fairly obvious that people produce shows for quite different primary audiences such as: family and friends, people who shared a journey or experience, a local camera club, themselves etc… you may be able to add many more. They also produce shows and post them here for different reasons. As Morturn pointed out this forum and its members represent a great audio visual resource. It is a place for learning from others and improving. This learning might itself be improved if the author states specifically what he or she would like the viewers to concentrate on. In Skelton Peter Appleton asked the audience. - Is the background an appropriate one? - Is the use of pan and zoom appropriate? - Has it been over-used? If all of us made it clear whether we would like general comments or comments on specific points this would help anyone providing feedback to concentrate on that aspect when watching the show. I don't like the formulaic approach but.... WOULD DESCRIBING THE PRIMARY AUDIENCE AND AREAS FOR COMMENT HELP TO INCREASE THE NUMBER OF RESPONSES ???? Xavier said he thought the provision of feedback was a natural one. The low number of people commenting on the shows posted indicate that it really does not come naturally to many participants (using the word loosely ) on the forum. John aka JFA you say that you show a 2.9% response. Is this the number of posts as a percentage of the number of views? If it is and you look at the number of individuals responding I think it will bring the percentage down a fair bit. 877 views of this post 32 responses (3.6%) 17 people involved (1.9%) The largest number of views for one show on the current 2 pages of shows posted is 3625, number of responses 78 (2.15%), number of people involved 18 (0.5%). I am not sure how the views count works. But I don’t imagine that many people keep viewing the same post and just going away. That suggests that over 3000 people had a read and either downloaded the show and said nothing or just moved onto the next post. I guess they’ll never tell me but I would like to know… . What are all the other people doing? Why do they look at the posts in this section? Do they download any shows, all the shows? Don’t they have anything to say? Kind regards Peter

Hi Dave, I enjoyed our second trip with you. As a memory for those on the trip it is probably ideal and that is what I think was your main aim. As an "outsider" I would echo Barry's comment and suggest some creative touches to increase the wider appeal. As with your earlier show I thought the map was a great addition putting the trip into context. I also thought the music was a good choice. I have quite a library of images from far away places and have always been reluctant to put them into a posted show. You have ceratinly set me thinking about having a go. Kind regards Peter

Hi Peter, I don't have much to add as I agree with what has already been said. I liked the overall concept and thought the pan a nd zooms were fine. The music and voice over were also spot on. I found the background rather intrusive and would suggest a neutral grey as a better option. I quite like the idea of stacking in Photoshop so that an old image could be replaced by a new one as it gently faded in. This would of course mean that Barry could not switch his eyes back and forward between old and new but might be effective for just one or two images. Reducing the size and/or vibrancy of the red arrows is also worth consideration. Very nicely done Kind regards Peter

Hi Dave, Having asked why so few people bother to comment I almost feel obliged to do so myself! Sandhills of Nebraska prompted one or two questions as well as one or two observations. The first question is; what is the purpose of this show and why have you posted it? This may seem a rather rude question but I really do NOT mean it in that way. The answers to these questions seem to me to make a lot of difference to the type of comments that viewers might make. I am a keen walker and while walking I take lots of photographs. Many of them are technically fairly mediocre but I keep them as memories of the places I have been and the pubs where we've had good lunches. I have made one or two PTE sequences from them but have only ever shown them to the four friends I walk with and their wives. I had a view that these images would not have much interest to a wider audience. I take a lot more care with other images when I am more concerned with the image quality. I watched your show several times and thought it had some very nice touches. I liked the opening sequence with the sandy background to match the Sandhills. Unlike Patrick I also liked the soundtrack; a very apt title and it was an excellent movie. Allowing sufficient time for the viewer to read the signs brought a different dimension to the images and your own captions helped to give a feel for the locations and scenes. The map was also a nice touch. It might have been better at the start but I'm not sure. I thought it was a shame that the opening shot of the motor bike was rather blurred and a really sharp picture would have provided a better intro. This was followed by two other images with washed out skies. I would have been very tempted to swap these skies for something a bit more interesting. (Ron West recently posted a tutorial on this if you happen to need one!) I guess the time it took me to put this comment together is one reason why there are not too many comments but I hope it helps in some small way. In all honesty it was probably only about 20 minutes. Thinking about the good points in other peoples' presentations and looking for possible areas for improvement is actually a good learning exercise in itself so this is not a one way benefit. Kind regards Peter

Hi Igor, This looks like a pretty impressive list. Great work. Many thanks Peter

I have been looking with interest at the number of people providing feedback on shows posted in the forum compared with the number of views. It is a very, very small percentage around the 1% mark. It sometimes appears higher if you look at the number of views compared with the number of posts but often there are multiple posts from the originator and one or two viewers. Why is the percentage so low? There appear to be hundreds of people who view the posts in the "slide shows created in PicturesToExe" thread and either don't download them or do download them but never comment. Would it be right to think that those who don't comment don't really like the shows they see? It is, after all, quite rare to see even constructive critical comments. This is quite nice in some ways but it doesn't really help the learning process. Just a point for discussion. Kind regards Peter

Ron, I quite agree with your statement but... I think it can be quite confusing for a newcomer to read through large numbers of posts especially when some comments can be a bit misleading. In one of your posts on this topic you asked "In the days berfore 5 most pundits recommended 1024 x 768 x 72 res." I don't think anyone said much about the old 72dpi chestnut in response but a further search might reveal a discussion about why dpi has no meaning as far as screen resolution and image size is concerend. As in http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=51169 For my money a newcomer needs simple straight forward answers and can spend time later searching all the posts. Peter

Hi Dan, If you would like a good explanation without wading through loads of posts have a look at the one provided by Barry Beckham at: http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/audiovisua...e%20%20size.htm Kind regards Peter

Hi Michel, Wonderful images made into a really enjoyable show. Kind regards Peter

Hi Colin, Sorry if I confused you. I don't feather anything first. I simply create a solid black layer with the hole in it behind the pale coloured and textured mask (or matte) I then use filter/blur/gaussian blur on the black layer which means I can control the effect precisely as I watch it on the screen. You can keep any layer hidden by simply clicking the eye icon in the layers pallet. I actually keep a psd file that I call "masktemplate.psd" and it has layers for the large mask, the twin picture mask, the shadow effects, a masked area that makes a non textured surface for the text when needed and a shadow for this text area. I simply open any image I want to use, drag it into the template, adjust the image size and position to suit and then save the whole lot as a jpg making sure I do NOT keep saving the masktemplate.psd. This method also has the advantage that you can have two (or more) images open as layers and by reducing the opacity of the higher image in the layer stack you can move a lower image to align it precisely to achieve the best transition. This is how I worked to get the alignments in flora's secret. http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8014 I realise that in words this all looks a bit complex but given a bit of time I could send you the template as a psd file with a better explanation if you still need it after looking at some of the more professional tutorials. Kind regards Peter

Hi Colin, When you come to cutting the holes in the main frame and then the black background keep the marquee tool active and use Select/Modify/Contract to make it the size that you want. This will ensure that the border exactly matches the frame - it is much easier than judging by eye with the marquee tool. Keep this shadow layer without modifying it and copy it. Use Filter Blur Gaussian blur on the copy layer only. Keep the first layer hidden and then you can use it again if you want to change the colour of the shadow to match different images. You can also duplicate the blurred version to make the border darker if you wish. Kind regards Peter

Hi Jim, Welcome to the forum. There are some really lovely images in your show which I enjoyed very much. I do however agree with Dave in that I found the frame quite distracting. It took something away from the images rather than enhancing them. I don't think it is just the colour it is also rather a fussy frame for my taste but... it is all a matter of taste. I also struggled with mixing landscape and portrait and somewhere further down the forum you can find a show I called flora's secret where I had a go at overcoming the problem. I thought it worked reasonably well but the subject matter was a bit different and I have not tried it with a landscape show. One or two professional landscape photographers that I know tend to make many of their prints in portrait format so perhaps we need to have rotating screens . Your show certainly doesn't look like a first effort good stuff. Kind regards Peter

Barry, Thanks very much for making the tutorial available for free, a very generous gesture. It downloaded and worked perfectly for me, no messing with anything. In your earlier tutorials you used to use Camtasia have you changed or does Camtasia produce wmv files now? It was interesting to see how much darker the images appeared in the tutorial than they did on the show. I guess this is another feature of the recording process. Kind regards Peter

Nice one Barry. You certainly wound up the contrast wonderfully in some of your images and it works really well in this show. It might be interesting if you could give some idea of how long you take to put one or two of your shows together. Judy Kay made a comment on a post a week or so ago about there being different types of shows and attitudes. I think she is right. There is a world of difference between putting a lot of images in a sequence and attaching some music and structuring a really creative AV. There is nothing wrong with putting the family snaps on a slide show with music and PTE makes it a doddle but how log does it take to produce a masterpiece? Kind regards Peter

Hi Isabel, Unfortunately "synchronise" probably does not mean what you think it means! It simply means link the music to the images. If you want the music and slides to end at the same time and you want to control the time that some of the slides are on the screen you have to adjust the total time of the slides to match the running time of the music. Alternatively set the running time of the slides and use Audacity or some other sound editor to edit the music time to match the slide duration. If you are happy to let the music dictate the time that images display for you can use auto spread but it is not likely to produce a very pleasing result. It certainly will NOT synchronise sound and vision. Kind regards Peter