sanewcomb

Hi Peter, Yes, that would work but it is quite a bit of work to do that for 60+ slides, and for every time I need to make an adjustment to the text comment properties or keyframes. It's one reason the old function was quite useful although I understand its limited use to most users. I think it was Tom who mentioned earlier in the forum that Ctrl-M still ran the old function, but it looks like WnSoft has removed the function itself completely. Would be nice if they could put it back in some form. A more general question, is there any way of copying any object from a single slide to all the other slides or a range of selected slides? That would be even more useful and probably easier to understand than just setting the text comments of all the slides to the currently selected one. Since posting my question above I have figured out what Igor was saying when he said text comments could be set for a number of slides at once, but this isn't what the old function did because it doesn't copy any of the keyframes or other object properties for text comments that are animated in some way (in my case I'm just using the transparency function in O&A to fade them out halfway through the slide duration). Steve

Hi Igor, In the above reply (#176) you were referring to removing the 'Set Comments on All Slides = Current One' and replacing it with a similar function to set the text comment for a number of selected slides. I can't figure out how to do this. To be more precise, I like to show my comment (or caption) when the slide first appears and then fade it about 1/2 the duration of the slide so the image can be viewed without any comment. To do this requires adding two keyframes to the time line for the Text Comment object in O&A. So I need to not only copy the Text Comment object with its parameters to the other slides, but also the keyframes. The removed function did this perfectly. I've also tried Ctrl-M, but does not seem to do anything. This function wasn't very useful for people who entered their captions into the Text Comment object (it would make all the slides have the same comment), but allowed one to continue to modify all the attributes of the Text Comment object such as size, drop shadow, position, etc. until the end by using comments stored in the JPG EXIF or IPTC fields. Thanks for any help.

Hi Dave, Ok, it all makes sense now to me. Thanks. Adding IPTC fields, particularly the caption field, is a great improvement for the P2E comment feature. It will be interesting to see how uniform the IPTC fields are across different photo editing programs. I can now add/edit the IPTC Caption field in Adobe PS CS2 for P2E shows. I'm not sure but it seems like a very useful comment feature has been removed. Maybe it's just been moved but I can't find it. It allowed copying the Text Comment object from one slide to all slides and was a menu item. What this allowed one to do is create an animated comment for the first slide (when it appeared on the slide, the transparency, when and how it dissolved, etc) and apply it to all the other slides using the comment template. You can do this manually, but it gets to be a pain copying and pasting the Text Comment object for every slide, especially since you have to do this all over everytime you make a change to the Text Comment object in the Objects and Animation window. I liked being able to show a comment explaining the photo (particularly for a vacation slideshow) but only having it on the screen for the first 4 seconds or so of each slide so the viewer could see the photograph without the caption too. I guess it was too confusing for many users. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Hi Igor, P2E has always had support for both user editable text fields of the EXIF header, so your comment confuses me a bit. In P2E EXIF Description extracts the ImageDescription field EXIF Comment extracts the UserComment field (this is a better field for inserting captions IMO) although in the past there were some bugs. I'm trying to remember but at one time it either ignored certain characters or chopped one char off the end of the string (so comments had to have a space padding at the end to avoid it). I'll admit I haven't used P2E much recently but this is what I recall from past discussions. Steve Tucson, AZ

Hi Lin, Neither IPTC nor JPG Comment field in Irfanview are part of the EXIF standard. You'll notice that IPTC, EXIF and Comment (JPG) each have their own buttons in the Irfanview Image Properties window. You can't use Irfanview to edit the EXIF fields. You need a different program, like the one Gerard uses ExifTool or Exifer. I used to use Exifer, but now use Exif Pilot. Both involve a number of keystrokes to insert text into the Exif fields. I find Exif Pilot has a somewhat easier workflow when working with a number of slides. If you do a search on EXIF or IPTC in the archives you'll find a couple of threads with details about these standards and the text/comment fields. One difficulty is the names of the fields are not consistent so some programs call one of the EXIF text fields UserComment and others just Comment (but this isn't the same as the JPG Comment field in Irfanview). The other threads explain the different names used for these fields. Steve Tucson, AZ USA P.S. I highly encourage better support for the EXIF fields, as well as IPTC. I think inserting text directly into the JPEG image files is the equivalent to writing on the back of photographs. It may seem like a bother in the present, but those words will add so much in the future when the user or ancestor reads them.

Hi thedom, It stutters a bit on my system under regular background apps, but I use a high res desktop (2048x1536) with a good, but not top of the line system (9600GT 512MB and AMD 5050e). It probably runs fine under typical desktop screen resolutions. Thanks for putting out these demos - it's given me and idea for an outdoors slideshow. Cheers, Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

After downloading your sample and running it smoothly on my system (which has a higher screen resolution and weaker hardware - 2048x1536 9600GT 512MB) I would say there is some software running in the background that is interrupting the processor. May be difficult to figure out in a loaded machine, but I like to start out with the fresh reboot because a system that has been running for a long time slowly loses resources due to poor programming efforts, both in the OS and apps. Edit: Oh, and as Igor always reminds us make sure the graphics adapter has the latest drivers. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

I would guess it's a combination of the pixel dimensions of the JPEG and the resolution of the screens on your computers. The quality of the JPEG compression should have no effect at all. I believe the entire JPEG has to be decoded and loaded into the video memory even if you only see part of it at a time. And the video memory requirements scale up by the square as the screen resolution goes up. So a big image sent to a big screen will start to run into hardware limitations. That is one reason it plays smooth on a 1024x768 screen. Try reducing the screen resolution a bit to see if that takes out the stutters. Addition: Another approach is to break up the image into smaller slices and put them on different slides and make sure you turn off the transition between the slides. As others have stated, small glitches can be caused by background tasks grabbing the computer's attention, though if the glitches are always in the same place it is probably related to hardware limitations. Try rebooting the computer and turning off all the widgets and background stuff. Then run the show. If it looks the same, focus on what you're doing inside PTE instead of the system. It sounds like your systems are very powerful, but that is where I've run into the high screen resolution problems before. In general as things scale up, some parts scale differently than others. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Peter, You are correct that text pulled from JPEG files is not the exact same issue as the Text Objects in the O&A window, but they are closely related. In my case, practically all the text that ever ends up in my slideshows comes from JPEG files, as I explained I have no interest in storing this text information in P2E project files. Though the source is different, this text is treated as a Text Object in every other way. In reference to putting this request in the Ideas section, it has already been done several times, by different people. It is a long standing issue (years). Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Is there any chance that text comments in JPEG files function can be improved? It's certainly been on the request list for some time. Though I don't remember all of the requests, I know many asked for the reading of IPTC fields, as well as a few bugs in the JPEG EXIF field reading functions. Well, to be more specific, here is what I would like to see improved with P2E Text function 1. Allow comments entered into P2E to be written to the JPEG. I find it much easier to add comments after most of the slideshow is finished, going from the first picture to the last. It is much more work to use a program like Exifer to add the comments because you first have to locate the images you have used in the slideshow from other pictures in the folder and then have to hunt for them since the order they are shown in P2E is not the order they are sorted in the picture folder. And I don't care much for saving the comments in the P2E project file itself (using the comment box at the top) because I don't expect to keep P2E project files for 30 years, but do expect to keep the photo files themselves. 2. Add IPTC comment and description fields. Others seem to feel the IPTC fields are more consistent and robust across photo applications and have requested this. Others can chime in here as well because I don't use IPTC fields. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

LumenLux, Your original concern if I understood it correctly was preventing the EXE file size from getting "too big". The most effective way to address this in my opinion is to use a JPEG compression value that is reasonable. Not too low or high. I find the settings in Photoshop to be too conservative and not reflective of the visual changes in the images. If I plan to distribute a show to a wide audience, one of the final steps is batch recompressing the single frame shots (not the stitched together panoramas) to a JPEG value of around 70 in Irfanview graphics program. This results in good compression and retains good visual quality. I'll watch the show one more time and if there are any photos with bothersome JPEG artifacts, I'll recompress the originals of those with a higher quality value. Large panoramas are more difficult to deal with on several fronts and are recompressed as well as resized individually with care. The more common difficulty with panos on high res screens is keeping smooth PZR motions throughout the slide and in both transitions (in and out). One thing to remember is as the screen res goes up, the actual pixel size goes down (for the same size monitor), and the JPEG artifacts start to "blend" into one another and are not as visible while watching a show. At least that is my experience. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA P.S. As others have stated, it's best to design and scale the images close to the target screen size (often your own monitor) because the resizing software in dedicated photo programs is better (and more time consuming) at doing this than PTE's runtime engine, which is designed to be small and quick. I also like aiming for a screen res one higher (if target is 1024x768 then my images are 1280x1024) to allow for slight zooms and panning.

Based on the replies I would say the stuttering may be due to a monitor resolution set too high for your video card. The larger the screen resolution, the more horsepower in the video card is needed. A screen set for 1600x1200 requires a lot more than 1280x1024. This is easy to test. Lower your screen resolution if it's above 1024x768 and see what happens. If your screen is already at 1024x768 the problem is probably elsewhere. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

I would check to see if the machine had the latest DirectX drivers for Win98 installed. I forget what version that is, but the Microsoft site will show you. We have a Win98 machine and updating the DirectX drivers allows it to play P2E 5.x shows. It will show most of them pretty good if you restrict the pixel dimension of the show. Probably the easiest way to do this is in windowed mode, maybe 640x480 or 800x600. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Hi Dom, It looked pretty neat, except I found the images moving within the polaroid frames odd. I would expect them not to move. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Interesting comment on line vs. frame signal processing. However, if most flat panel computer displays use frame processing then the laptops would most likely be showing the same problem, and they do not. I looked at the manual for the SX50 and it is a very nice and powerful projector. I'm sure there is a work around for this problem. Ed, have you tried turning off the progressive scan option (if it is on)? Or turning it on if it is off. Page 67 of the manual. One work around that should work would be to create HD Videos in P2E, then display them using a powerful enough laptop/desktop. The FPS value should be set in the video file and if the computer is fast enough it should keep up and output at a fixed FPS. (I don't see a setting for the FPS in the HD Video option under the Create function, but under AVI video file you can select 1280x720 60 FPS). I know converting all the slideshows to MP4s would be a bother, but it should give a much better quality image than the s-video or other video (non-computer) input options. This should work whether connected with the standard VGA 15 pin connector or the more modern DVI connector on the projector. But if one doesn't work, try the other. I think it would be fairly easy for WnSoft to offer a fixed FPS output for P2E exe files. Maybe he could send you a custom build beta to see if that does the trick. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Update2: More use and observation seem to indicate the problem is not with P2E, but probably the video drivers. To get the high resoultion (2048x1536) I have to use the custom settings and Vista 64bit seems to be confused by this, or store different values for the screen in different areas. Different programs show different behaviors (Irfanview covers all of the taskbar except the round windows logo, quite odd), which indicates to me they are using different techniques to acquire the desktop's dimensions and full screen mode. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

I've been following this thread for a few days and have been working on a response, but it keeps changing because of all the activity on this issue! A bit frustrating to rewrite it over and over, so I'm going to jump in with a response. If it seems somewhat disjoint, it's coming from a number of days and rewrites. Sorry about that, but it's now or never ! I second what Colin has said in his most recent posts (#44), that the changing FPS (Frames Per Second) may be the cause for the difference between computer Monitor results vs. Digital Projectors. Below is what I wrote awhile ago before his posts. When I first scanned this thread I thought I had a good idea of what the problem was, that it was related to the refresh rate as Colin first noted. But after reading the original documents Ed provided and looking at the specs of the Canon projector, I've worked myself around to a different conclusion. (And then a third with another go around!). It would be useful for anyone who wants to help to read the original documents before posting and look at the slideshow. Ed has put a lot of thought and effort in presenting the problem. Possible Sources of Video Artifacts in Digital Projectors There seem to be two possible sources to explain the observations. One, which has been mentioned a few times in the thread, is the quality of the connections. Although one would expect the manufacturers of high end equipment to provide high quality cables, it isn't necessarily the case. These manufacturers are pretty new to the computer video graphics arena and may not understand the issues in making a cable capable of transmitting the entire spectrum of frequencies a video graphics card can send. Their methods may only involve testing standard broadcast signals. It should be easy enough to find an old VGA 15 pin HD D-Sub (HD-15) cable lying around just to see what happens. Just because the artifacts are seen on two different companies products doesn't rule out the cables. There is a lot of looking over each others shoulders in modern corporations, and choosing to do what everyone else is doing rather than risk being "different" (ie, doing it right!). The second, which is probably more likely, is the technology used to sync to a changing signal in the Digital Projectors may not as advanced or mature as it is in computer Monitors. It may also be related to limits in the hardware itself that is used to project the image in these LCD/LCOS projectors. As others have noted the artifacts appear in fast moving pans (primarily) or zooms, times when P2E will be putting out fewer frames per second (though not less than 30 or so because the motions appear to be smooth on the computer monitors), and times when the change in FPS is most rapid. When little animation is going on, the graphics card puts out a steady frame rate (whatever it is, often as high as 120 FPS) which the projectors can sync to, but when the rate changes quickly it has a harder time keeping up. Problem Mainly with Pans and may not be related to Inside or Outside I wouldn't say the test slideshow was conclusive in demonstrating the problem is only when the pan or zoom goes outside the original screen display. It seems connected to the panning alone, with the zoom having little additional effect. A simple way to test this is start with an image zoomed 800%, then pull out to 300% over 10 sec (basically the reverse of slide 11). I suspect you will not see any artifacts even though it has zoomed outside the initial display screen. And the faster the pan, the more likely to see the artifact. To test the "outside the screen theory" in another way make a slide to zoom up with speed to say 800%, then pan quickly 4x screens left or right. The pan would be within the original screen display and I suspect it will create artifacts. Workarounds There are workarounds if rapid FPS changes are the case. Without going into too much detail here at this time, if you understand what causes the video graphics card to lower its FPS, then you can avoid triggering these artifacts most of the time I would think. 1. Use only the image resolution (pixel width and height) necessary for show. 2. Avoid putting a lot of images into 1 slide 3. Slice up large panoramas and use panning technique that JPD and possibly others have used (no transitions) 4. Don't transition between two large slides (both images have to be in video memory at same time) 5. If transition problem won't go away, consider turning off the transition all together and using simple fade in / fade out. If the changing rate of the FPS is the cause, it may also be possible for WnSoft to offer a fixed FPS option and by setting it to around 25 or 30 FPS, then you could have some assurance that a smooth playback on the computer monitor will be reproduced on most digital projectors. In a way this is already possible, by creating a DVD or HD DVD show because those standards fix the framerate. Another alternative is to go Maureen's route (link in post 39) and use the HDTV standard signals by having all the components meeting that standard. I know that doesn't help the ones with orphaned projectors. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA PS I don't think it is as complicated as Brian's post implies and I think he may have one technical point backwards. Specifically, I think the problem may be related to the rate of change in the FPS, from high to low in most cases, and not overloading a memory buffer in the projector. 3D graphics engines will drop frames when they become overloaded with memory or bandwidth limited requests from the software. Put another way, when nothing is moving on the screen, the video card is probably putting out 120 FPS or more, which displays fine on the projectors. When loading large resolution pictures (it primarily only matters what the pixel dimensions are and not the file size) and transitioning between two large pictures, the video card's memory overflows and it starts paging, which requires the FPS to slow down significantly.

I see what you mean, the visual defects after the slideshow is over (though I could care less with those defects! LOL) Looking into this a bit further, most programs cover the taskbar (IE, Media Player, Opera, Firefox) but a few do not like Google Earth, P2E 5.6. In addition, the toolbar become translucent, you can see the program below the taskbar. So there must be a new setting somewhere in th OS, display drivers, or program code for this "feature". Asus EN9600GT 512MB Silent video card. 2048x1536x32 screen resolution NVidia 181.22 video drivers Vista Ultimate 64bit OS SP1 with auto update on This is an OEM install an no 3rd party programs were installed with the OS installation. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Update. I found out not every show does this. Older shows do not show the Vista taskbar. I'm not sure which version the change occurred, but all the shows downloaded from this forum recently show the taskbar on my machine. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Vista Taskbar Visible in P2E EXE Slideshows I recently upgraded to Vista Ultimate and I was surprised when the Vista taskbar was still visible in every EXE slideshow. I can get rid of it on my own machine by turning on the Auto_Hide option for the taskbar, but that won't remove it on other people's machines. The taskbar obviously detracts from viewing a slideshow. These are standard slideshows, no video or chained slideshows. Also see the taskbar on other people's slideshows downloaded here. Seems like I must be missing something here because I couldn't find anything in the archives. The Keep The Taskbar On Top Of Other Windows option is set, but this is the default and desired setting. It's also the setting in WinXP and there is no problem there. Other programs like IE7, when put in Full Screen Mode, cover the taskbar. This is a Vista Ultimate install with all current updates, typical install, latest video drivers, with Aero desktop. Is there a new setting in P2E 5.6? Any Ideas? Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Thank you all for the kind remarks. I only use P2E to make personal slideshows from outdoor trips, mainly as a way to look back in the future and remember the experience as well as "relive" the experience several times shortly after the trip while making the show. I end up looking a lot more at my photographs this way than if I just reviewed them before putting them on a DVD. Lin, those slab chairs were primo and in high demand. I guess the coldness was mostly a function of padding down there, and they felt fine to me! Ken, I'm not much for the jeeps but I realize not everyone can get out the way I do. I support opening up some areas for this, but am against the notion that every square mile of land should be accessible or viewable by any means so everyone can see it. Not implying that you do, just expressing a strong opinion of mine that the thought of jeeps (and tour planes) brought up. Lumenlux, there are always tradeoffs and in this case I was focused on matching the slides to the movement of the music. It starts off by selecting the photos I want to see, then the music. If you approach it this way you end up with how it fits the music. I agree the comments go by too fast, a common result of my shows. I like to have the photo on screen with nothing else at least some of the time and that is why I fade the commets out. I would enjoy an option of being able to turn the comments on and off, so there would be the option of just seeing the images. There is one side benefit. It motivates my friends to play it over a second time to get all the comments! ; ) Cheers, Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

All players do not do this and the situation is complicated. From a different thread I wrote: "One might think HDTVs solve this problem [aspect ratio variance of analog systems], but in ways it remains. Since I ran these tests we bought a Sony HDTV 1080p and a Samsung Blu-ray player [bDP1000]. What I found, which may be limited to these models, is the image aspect ratio accuracy depends on how the two are connected. Using the RCA or Component connectors, the HDTV can be put into what it calls a Normal mode and the measured aspect ratio was 1.01 for the VideoBuilder Output [as Ray states, the HDTV puts the two black bars on either side]. There was lots of padding of course on the left and right, but I was surprised the top and bottom were also cropped. Perhaps related to overscanning in the NTSC standard. When the HDTV is connected using the HDMI connector, the way one would hope most sets would be connected, there was no Normal setting offered [in the HDTV menus]. The closest setting was Full, where the image filled the screen. The aspect ratio in this case was 1.33 for the VideoBuilder output, and 1.18 for Option B. As I wrote above, other HDTVs or Blu-ray players may provide different options leading to different results." So when the HDMI cable was used, there doesn't seem to be any simple way to get either device to pad the video with black bars to maintain the 4:3 aspect ratio. In the ideal world the devices would do this automatically and they should do it, but they don't. I would say if you want to be sure it is displayed consistantly on all HDTVs, use the disable Pan and Scan and accept the somewhat larger file sizes. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Here is a slideshow of a weekend trip last Fall when the colors were at their peak. I've picked songs that would go with the mood of the trip (as welland have tried to synchronize movements of the music and images. Hope you enjoy. The file will be posted to my internet server space for a few weeks. It is a reduced resolution file made of 1024x768 images and weighs in around 49 MB. http://home.comcast.net/~steve_newcomb/WestFork2008S.zip I've appreciated the shows that others have shared on the forum as well as the tips and tricks. There is nothing that fancy in this show, but if anyone wants to know how anything was done, post a reply. Thanks to all of those who have posted before. Happy New Year to All, Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Daniel, The article doesn't cover any of the HD options that have been recently added to VideoBuilder. It only covers making 4:3 and 16:9 DVD videos to be displayed on either conventional TVs or HDTVs. However, to solve your problem all you need to do is disable the Pan and Scan option on the opening screen of VideoBuilder. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

This is good news. Ray, are you still using your method written in the HD appendix? After being reminded of the AVCHD format, the following Wiki page explains part of what I have experienced http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Compati...ay_Disc_players Sony looks like a good bet since they created and promoted the Blu-Ray format, though it irks me a bit to play into the hands of a company that ultimately benefits itself from compatibility problems with its "standard". Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA