sanewcomb

Can you explain why this black mask has a whiteish edge in P2E? It was made in Photoshop CS2 and saved as a PNG file. It reopens in Photoshop CS2 fine and shows no visible edge artifacts. When opened in Irfanview, it does show something odd at the edge, but Irfanview does not display PNG files with transparancy correctly. So I'm not sure if there is anything wrong with this file. You described a way to correct the problem with PixelBuilder. If the problem is with the alpha layer in Photoshop CS2, does anyone know how to correct it. I tried using the Magic Wand, but no success. For this type of mask, I have found that saving it as a GIF file works fine in P2E. I'm just wondering why the PNG file shows an edge artifact in P2E. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

I think I know why it functions this way, and it's the same reason the keypoints with a "+" snap to a specific time value when they are positioned near them. For slides that have transitions, there are 4 key times where specific events happen, and there is reason to want these events to occur at the same relative time if the overall time of the slide is changed. 1. Beginning of slide 2. End of transition from previous slide 3. Beginning of transition to next slide 4. End of slide Any keypoint that is associated with these time points (denoted with "+" sign) will shift so that they always occur at these events. This is desirable in many cases, where you feel there isn't enough time for viewing the image and want to add a second or two, but you want the events you have defined previously to occur at the designated event times. For example, if you set up a zoom in or out to take place over the duration of the slide, then add 1 second to it, if the keypoint at the end of the slide did not increment by 1 second, the zoom would stop 1 second short during the transition, something most people would not like and requiring them to manually reset each end keypoint. A workaround with the current beta is to just subract 1 ms from any keypoint with a "+" sign that you don't want to change. Perhaps Wnsoft will add an option to turn off or on the snap "+" feature , but I find it very useful. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

Comments for Slides Implementation This started on the recent thread titled "Dvd Burning Not Working!" starting with post #4 http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....amp;#entry39274 Al, I have made postings about this several months ago. I was reluctant to add more postings since I was expecting the feature to be added sooner and I wanted to wait to see what was being done before posting more. At the moment, I'm concerned there won't be enough time for feedback and changes on the current schedule. Basically, I'm hoping the implementation of the comment feature for P2E 5.0 allows one to setup how all the comments will be seen in one or so dialog boxes, and then pull the text from the JPG files. It is not critical that P2E pulls them from the JPG files, but I strongly feel the comments should stay with the images, that they are part of the images, and having to retype them in P2E (or any other slideshow program) is a unnecessary waste of time. Slideshow programs come and go, the images files are kept for a lifetime. From what I understand, P2E 4.x did this although the quality of the rendered text was not very good. I may have confused my previous post by lumping together the text object with comments. What this post is concerned about is the comment feature only. Since there may not be any time to change the way it is implemented I will repeat what I think should be basic functions for the comment feature in P2E ver 5.0 - pull comments from various parts of JPEG meta file area - set amount of time and when (or begin, end time) comment appears - allow precise position of comment (x,y, percent, etc) - shadows and antialias are really needed to keep quality on same standard as rest of program - some basic set of transition for how the comment comes on/off screen (fade, scroll, horz, vert, etc) The comment function can be a very powerful feature if the results are of the same quality and it is easy to use. It won't prevent people from adding more text, in text objects, in any way they like, but it will allow a large number of users who want to share slideshows with friends with comments without purchasing additional software and spending time learning to manipulate layers, waiting for the scripts to produce individual PNG files, creating objects for each one and placing them in each slide, creating numerous keypoints. Plus the difficulty of editing comments after they are made. Igor, what is not clear to me in your post (#13 of above thread) is whether there is an overall setup dialog box that allows one to set all the parameters for the comments for all slides and only leaves entering the comments in each JPG file. For more elaborate text on a given slide, I expect to leave the comment field in the JPG blank and add a text object, with custom settings, to that slide. I don't think this is a difficult thing to do and it is available in competing products, but I really wonder if this is going to be in the final version since it has not been available to look at in the approximately 30+ beta versions released so far. Crossing my fingers, Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

I've been looking forward to a simple way of putting comments/captions/text into slideshows since last summer. We were told features like these, long part of previous versions of P2E, were simple to add and would be as soon as the new PZR 3D engine was complete. In other words, we've been told they would be added soon for many months. It has been a disappointmet to me since I purchased the program almost a year ago and consider something like this a basic function for any slideshow program. I truly hope WnSoft allows enough time for feedback and fixes for comments/captions/text feature before the final version is released. I think the dialog box for comments should allow precise position, when and how long it should appear, shadows and simple transitions like fade in and out, scrolling, etc. Basically, setting up how the captions will appear in a high quality way, then just entering the text into the JPG files. There's nothing new about this sort of control which other programs have and it makes adding comments so much easier. I spend as much time making and editing comments with photoshop and keypoints as I do with the pictures, something I would rather not do. Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA

I couldn't find a page showing this, but OpenGL has always been a cross platform driver and I expect they will continue to support XP. The current version still runs on Win95 and one of their "selling" points is Available Everywhere http://www.opengl.org/about/overview/#5 It most likely will be later than the drivers that will allow the next version of OpenGL (Longs Peak) to work on Vista. It all depends on the video card companies writing their drivers, and right now they are all focused on Vista. Since the Longs Peak documentation isn't finished, it is not possible to tell when actual drivers will be available. One thing to understand is use of DirectX 10 is also in the future. Although the code is in Vista, there are only a few very high power video graphics cards that support it, and they are very expensive like the NVidia GeForce 8800GTX http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?...N82E16814130072 Windows Vista OS itself, including Aero, does not use DirectX 10. It uses DirectX 9: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/...de/capable.mspx As far as I can tell one of the main differences in DirectX10 is a mandatory requirement by Microsoft to have the video card hardware accelerate the Shader Model 4.0. The 8800GTX is the first card to do this and it has nothing to do with the operating system. There's more about DirectX10 here http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/11/08/wha...0_is_all_about/ At this time there are no video games or other applications that use DirectX10 that I know of. The one most gamers are talking about is Crysis, which is due out in June 2007. You will have to purchase a new machine, OS and video card to run DirectX10 only games, but there is no reason to do any of that right now, when prices are highest for these technologies. One certainly does not have to purchase Vista to run very nice and smooth P2E high res slideshows. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

This is only one view of the future. A lot is up in the air right now in the software/computer world. In one sense, Microsoft is fighting for its existence, or rather the existence of the business model that made it so profitable. The articles above talk about Microsoft's decision not to release a version of DirectX 10 for Windows XP. It is clear this is being done to make people upgrade to Vista. It is one of the disadvantages of the near monopoly OS situation. Why should someone's 3D graphics experience depend solely on the operating system? What about the concept of supporting past versions, especially the previous version? There is no technical reason DirectX 10 could not be ported over to XP. The hardware functions in your video card are available to whatever calls any software driver makes. The software cannot magically create hardware functions. Google, Linux, OpenGL offer a different view of the future. They are all based or favor the open source philosophy. OpenGL is a graphics driver similar to DirectX that dates back to 1992. Actually, it predates DirectX, which was a Microsoft response to the success of OpenGL. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenGL#History It has always offered superior performance over DirectX and has planned major revisions to compare to DirectX 10 this summer and fall. Many video games use OpenGL drivers. Google Earth uses the OpenGL driver on your computer if you have one. In fact, it is one way to compare the two graphic systems by switching back and forth. Though this is not a comparison of the latest versions of either. There are video performance issues to upgrading to Vista as well, mostly because Vista will no longer allow direct access to the video card. See this article, particularly the Will My Applications Run Fast? section: http://www.opengl.org/pipeline/article/vol003_7/ There is a fight going on between the old monopolistic OS model and a new open source, advertised supported content way. It's been going on for a decade or more, but Google's success has many people wondering if the monopoly OS days are over. Given the situation it may be worth putting off buying into the Microsoft version of the future for now. It's a significant investment and things could be very different one year from now. I have no plans to upgrade to Vista this year and want others to realize they aren't missing the boat by not buying Vista now. I still use Word95 because it does all the things I need in a word processor. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

These concerns strike me a bit odd since it seems to me the basic structure of the WnSoft Forums already separates shows and artistry from technical questions. The three forums I see at the following page are (my comments in normal type): http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums PicturesToExe News about PicturesToExe, technical support, discussions A free for all for any type of question. With the development of a major upgrade, many questions are focused on how to do things with the new version. PicturesToExe Presentations Announcements of new presentations, discussions, links to Web sites where you can find new presentations This seems like a good place to post presentations and comment about different techniques seen in each one. How to Create Video How to prepare video file in PicturesToExe and then burn DVD-Video or SVCD disc with help of special software. Things related to creating AVI and DVD output from the program. Though many technical questions have appeared in the first forum, in particular in the pinned topic related to the most recent beta relese. In addition, this is certainly a very democratic forum, with all posts welcome. In a way it reflects what the forum posters are interested in at the moment. If you are disappointed with the lack of posts concerning the artistic side of creating slideshows, start posting your ideas on the subject. I'm sure it will generate some discussion. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

I think Fabrizio is correct that it has something to do with the difference between outputting to the built in screen versus the external VGA connector. Since the slideshow runs fine on the laptop screen, it isn't the computer or video card. This could either have to do with the way the video card controller and memory are put together, or the fact that the mode sent out on the VGA connector is different than the screen mode internally. Are you displaying video on both the laptop and VGA out connector? If so, try turning off the laptop monitor. Check the screen mode (resolution and refresh rate) of the VGA out connector and try changing it to lower values, although I understand it is optimum to match the output to the native resolution of the LCD projector. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

It ran in all three of my browsers in a new browser instance. The size of the instance was the same as the instance it was opened from, and the swf file filled these dimensions according to width. It ran smooth enough, although since I run a fairly high desktop (1600x1200 or greater), the upsampled versions were quite grainy. Reminded me of a YouTube quality video, which I think is near the same res. Load time was fine as well, with this 3+ MB version. Didn't have the opportunity to try the other size. Worked fine in Swiff as well. Steve Tucson, AZ USA FireFox 1.5.0.7 Opera 8.51 IE 6.0.2800....... Windows XP SP1, AMD XP 2000+, 1GB Gainworld NVIDIA Ti 4200 64 MB

Converting digital camera and/or computer images into a movie (DVD) format for the television will result in either a distorted image or a cropped image. This is because they are different standards. In addition, analog TVs (everything except the latest digital HDTVs, and only if they are being run in digital mode) vary from set to set and the image that can be seen depends on how well the set is adjusted. This is why there is a "TV Safe" zone function in most programs for making movies. It shows you what may not show up when displayed on any individual TV set. This is the easiest way to go when you want to be sure certain parts of the image show up in most people's TVs. If you are talking about just your TV, and it is well adjusted, I've found the default settings in P2E do not produce the best movie, in terms of coverage and distortion. I've had better success with movies on my TV set to create a Custom AVI file with 740x480 dimensions (P2E adds two 40 pixel black bars on either side to preserve the aspect ratio of the photograph and at the same time put it into the correct dimension for the DVD format) and burn it with a DVD authoring program. I'm not certain if the latest betas with the DVD Builder included have the same problem as I haven't had much luck burning DVDs with it. With the Custom AVI, I see almost 100% on one axis and 96% on the other using standard 1024x768 photos from my camera and no other settings adjusted. Ken Nickles made some good points on this matter in a post to the forum in 2004. The best explanation for this (which he also referenced) is a web page on aspect ratios by Jukka Aho http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~f76998/video/conversion/ but it is a technical paper. The actual paper starts several pages down. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Hi Dom, I don't know how Igor plans to implement the speed (accelerate/decelerate) adjustment to either zoom function. But if it is similar to other programs' implementations, then it will be a multiplier effect on the function. If this is the case, the original zoom function will zoom in faster when accelerated, but over the course of the zoom (from beginning to end) it will still decelereate while zooming toward an image. I agree with you that whatever adjustment is applied to the original zoom function that it probably (though not necessarily) will work with the "Perspective Correction" checkbox. We'll just have to see. Al, I wasn't objecting to Wnsoft's implementation as much as just stating how it was different than what I expected and how I view the PZR effect. I see it more from the camera's viewpoint, rather than objects. I agree with you that their implementation is more versatile and will lead to more startling effects, particularly 3D like surreal effects with multiple objects zooming in a scene. But I also think it will require more care and attention to each object's checkbox and is potentially more confusing overall. If your multiple zoomed objects scene doesn't look quite right or how you want it to look, double check the "Perspective Correction" checkboxes. Actually, the way it is currently implemented the "Perspective Correction" is not an inheritable trait. I assume you are talking about the case where the sub-object has a zoom as well as the main image? In this case the sub-object's zoom will be performed according to whatever its own "Perspective Correction" is set to, in addition to the parent object's settings. For my purposes it is even easier than you suggest. Since most of my slides have just one object zooming, the main image, there is no need to worry about the checkboxes on any other objects in the slide. It only matters when there are other objects in the slide with their own zoom settings. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Hi Al, As the instigator of the "Perspective Correction" feature (I don't like the name much, but that's up to WnSoft), I found it interesting that it could selectively be applied to different objects in a slide. As I invisioned it, it was a correction to the zoom function itself so that the software simulation would follow the physics more closely of the rostrum cameras used by Ken Burns in his documentries (and now I've learned of Ken Morse of the UK, probably preceding Mr. Burns), as well as others. In other words, I see it as a function affecting the entire scene and I would want all the objects to either have the box checked or unchecked. Clearly it's more versatile in this implementation, but may also be more confusing to some. In the simplest terms, the original zoom function of previous P2E betas appears to decelerate when zooming inwards (and accelerate when zooming out). This is useful for zooming into a face and a slowing down is desired. The "Perspective Correction" zoom function appears to accelerate when zooming inwards (and decelerate when zooming out). This is useful when there is a fairly large zooming out and you don't want the end of the zoom to displayed for a brief time. Now there is a simple way to create the opposite zoom effect for P2E slideshows (something that simply speeding up or down either function wouldn't achieve). Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Thanks Bruce. When it was crashing, it was before it could write any files. I was able to burn a DVD that plays on a stand alone DVD player, but there were a number of glitches in it. It did not show the frame I selected for the title box on the menu screen, and without touching the DVD player's controls, this box would alternate between being selected and deselected. There was an audio glitch about 1/2 way through the slideshow, a momentary drop out (no sound). It was a 12 minute slideshow. Also, the file structure is not visible in windows explorer on the computer. It shows 0 objects, 0 bytes. I wanted to see if the folder of picture files had been copied. The movie does not play on the computer DVD player. There was a brief operation failure message right at the end of the process, but I could not tell what it was referring to. The video program said it was done and had the close button activated, so I closed it and exited P2E. I was surprised when it took a few minutes to eject the DVD after exiting the program, with the activity light on the drive on. Perhaps it's related to the unusual file structure on this particular DVD. This will be my last post on the DVD Player part of P2E, as I do not plan on spending any more time using this feature to make DVD movie slideshows in the current beta. Back to making new computer slideshows! I will try to answer any questions though. I can send you the two log files if you are interested Igor. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

To add another data point, the P2E Video burner is exiting without burning just after it finishes the VOB file indexing or preparation. My system is not locking up, but seems to have a problem around the same point as others in this thread. I clicked all the boxes in the debug menu (Shift+Ctrl+Alt+Q), but I can't find any log files on the hard disk. Where should I look? There is no C:\dvdlog.txt file. It did create 3 files in the temp directory, the mpg file and 2 menu bmps. The program's window just disappears. Does not lock up my system or any other programs. Just disappears. Can be restarted. First time I changed some options such as audio format and menu items. Second time I pressed default button to reset parameters, set it to NTSC output, changed the temp directory and unclicked the animation check box. Same result. I don't have any problems with my system, DVD drivers or OS. I'm running Win XP SP1, Pioneer DVR-A06U/Z on a firewire adaptor. Burns other things just fine with many different DVD buring programs. This doesn't bother me too much since I can produce DVD movies using other software. Just wanted to let you know for other users. Beta #7 Video program crashed much earlier in the DVD making process on my machine. Edit: There are no files created by P2E Video on the C:\ root drive. Also, I'm not sure what beta version I have. It says "PicturesToExe v5.00 beta 8A" on the window bar, but I downloaded it off of message #30 in the main beta thread at the top of the forum screen. Edit2: Also I did check the include files to include them on the DVD as well. Apparently the video program makes no check for file size, or does an incorrect check. The folder I wanted to include on the DVD turned out to be over 6GB in size. Maybe that's the problem. Will try another burn....... Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Hello Igor and the WnSoft team. I am very appreciative of your hard work and excellent skills in implementing PZR effects through 3D video card functions. But I am troubled by the focus the last few months on features that are ancillary (incidental, minor) to the production of high quality slideshows for computers while important features are left unfinished. We were told months ago these features were quick to add and would be as soon as the 3D engine was finished. Looking at the timeline I see there will be little opportunity for feedback on some of these features that will only be added to the final beta. I ask if you can move the implementation of the features that were promised to be in the final version (such as text objects, comments, music sync, external apps, etc) to the next beta, number 8, instead of continuing to work on difficult problems that don't directly affect the creation of high quality slideshows such as creating DVD movies and the 2nd graphics engine. Additional comments below. Again, I am thankful of your hard work. Sincerely, Steve Newcomb Tucson, AZ USA I don't think this is an accurate statement since this version of the code has not been released and tested on user's computers. Based on the current release, there will be additional problems that need to be worked out. This is a whole new can of worms (new set of problems) as you have stated yourself. The operating system upgrade to Vista will be filled with all sorts of new problems for all developers, particularly with drivers, as every update has been and it is one reason many users are waiting a fair amount of time to upgrade existing computers. If your goal is to hold back the release of P2E 5.0 final until all the bugs related to running it on Vista are solved, you are talking about many more months. Remember there is a big difference between running a new operating system on a newly purchased computer versus upgrading an existing computer with older hardware. I have never understood why so much effort is being made to implement the PZR effects on the previous 2D graphics engine. As has been stated, it will result in a much lower quality, will include the same problems all the other slideshow programs have following this route, and will lead to confusion when the same slideshow EXE file is distributed and some people say "wow, that was an impressive slideshow" and others say "it was OK, but quality not so good" because of the two engines. This also undercuts your goal of providing the best slideshow program available. I think there is more benefit to including a simple system check and reporting the minimum hardware necessary than showing a poor quality version seemlessly. Thought in a different way, the wonderful visual experience your 3D engine provides is a positive way to encourage people to upgrade their computers to the technological potential that exists today (and it's not Windows Vista, it's the video card). Please move this to beta #8 Assuming your goal is to enable all the previous features, here are additional feature not mentioned in your post (from a previous post of Dom's) - start external application - association of a sound to a slide - association of mouse buttons with an action (next slide, prev slide, exit, etc...) - show copyright logo - automaticaly start PTE when double clicking on a .pte file. - show transition effect from and to the desktop In general, if it's simple to enable, move these features to beta #8. I would like to address three specific features that I personally have been waiting for many months and that I think are important for the ease of use and visual quality of P2E computer slideshows. - comments (not in the list you posted) I think adding comments or captions in an easy and attractive way is important in creating slideshows to share with friends and family and a feature that has been poorly addressed or non-existent in most previous slideshow programs (for years). I have never used pre 5 P2E versions, but from recent posts on this board and a brief look at 4.48, the way it was implemented is not up to the new standard set by the 3D engine. "Pasting" text generated using system fonts onto the pictures will look bad and not be useful. I don't know what your vision is for implementing this feature and I am distressed that your current plans are to add it to the last beta, with little time for feedback and debugging. Despite claims by others that it is easy to add text using Photoshop or other graphics programs, it is not if there is anything more than a few added objects. It is also a bit much to ask potential customers to purchase these programs for just adding comments/captions. I hope your plans are to add them as text objects and allow for fade in/out, how long they are displayed and when they appear on the slide. A final point about captions. To me the comment/caption is associated with the picture, not the slideshow. I spend a lot of time adding comments/captions to my image files because I know I will have these files for as long as I live, but will have many programs for creating slideshows. It is the modern day equivalent to writing on the back of a photograph. It is important to me and very useful if the slideshow program correctly extracts this information from the image files, and I can imagine there will be some effort/debugging in making sure this works with the various methods currently used (JPEG comment, EXIF description and/or comment, IPTC fields). - text objects with real shadow as in DVD Builder menu or in Adobe Photoshop; Again, not sure what this means in terms of implementation. For example, will this use system fonts and require those fonts are on the end user's computer? In terms of visual quality this sounds like what is needed for high quality text with the 3D engine. Ideally, P2E would generate a Photoshop quality image object that could be used like a PNG file with graphic text is used in the current betas. And the comment feature would essentially create a text object of this type and have the main variables (placement, opacity, timing) set in a dialog box. - Adjusting of speeds for Pan/Zoom/Rotate objects. We have exchanged emails about the problem with the current implementation. Any added feature such as acceleration/deceleration (speed) would require correcting the basic function first or it will produce unexpected and confusing results. This will probably take more than one iteration to accomplish and should be put in an earlier beta. Sorry for the long post, but I am concerned that you have gotten off track. I very much look forward to the final release with all the necessary features enabled and implemented. But as it stands now it seems the final release with an uncertain date may or may not have these important features working well. I am able to produce the type of slideshows I envision with the beta as it is today, but the amount of work to do so limits how many can be done, as well as significantly reducing the enjoyment of the process due to the large amount of tedious work and record keeping. Keeping my fingers crossed your efforts can be refocused on the main innovation you have created, a wonderful visual application for the 3D GPUs in modern video cards.

GMail has a file size limit of 10 Mb for email attachments, which is not very large. Also, you cannot send EXE files through GMail and it doesn't matter if it has been put in a ZIP or not. The reason they give is to prevent the spread of potentially damaging viruses in the executable code. http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?answer=6590 Given the growth and importance of Google in the computer universe, the WnSoft team may want to look again into an option they mentioned recently about distributing a stand alone P2E player that could play content only (no executable code) slideshow files. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Hi Igor, While I can understand the desire to improve P2E by adding a easy to use DVD authoring program, the reason I bought the beta version in May 2006 was the superior Pan and Zoom feature. I believe most users of P2E have bought it for creating high quality slideshows on computers (exe files). I do not see any progress on restoring the basic features between the last two betas and fear debugging the DVD program will consume most of WnSoft's and the forum's time. If restoring these last features is a technological problem, I'd like to see the attempts in the betas so we can provide feedback. For me, the feature that is sorely missing is adding comments. The amount of work to use Photoshop and png files to provide comments, and to revise comments, is significant and in the end makes the program in its current form much less useful to me. Since comments are an important part of any slideshow I create, I would also like to have an opportunity to give feedback for improvements in the comments implementation before the final release. For those who want or need DVD movie versions of their P2E slideshows, that functionality is in the current version. The Deluxe version is only offering making this process easier, and from the initial responses it appears the problems users have with 3rd party DVD authoring programs across many hardware/software parameters will be a complex (meaning timely) problem to solve. Sincerely, Steve Tucson, AZ

Hi Cheryl, Sorry for the late reply. I don't read these forums as often as I would like. You can view the proprietary AVI files that P2E produces. The quality in terms of stuttering and sync probably depends on how fast your computer is. For my computer, there are noticeable lags when the proprietary AVI file plays by clicking on the filename in windows explorer, and huge lags when previewed in Nero Vision Express 3 (about 3 "next" screens into the process, when the DVD remote is on the right side of the screen). I should have asked in my first reply, but are you burning a DVD and then watching it on a TV through a DVD player to view its quality? Viewing video files on a computer don't give you the complete picture as far as quality that one would see on a TV set. If so, at this point I can only offer you the settings I use that produce good quality DVD movie discs when viewed on a TV set with a DVD player. 1. Resize photo files to 1024x768 using photo program (like Photoshop, Paint Shop Pro, etc). 2. Use Create Custom AVI video and set it to 720x480 3. Uncheck boxes for Pinnacle Studio and Ulead Moviemaker templates 4. Check Smart Anti-Flicker filter 5. Select Progressive Video in drop down box below Smart Anti-Flicker filter Create the proprietary AVI file, load it into Nero VISION Express 3 and go through the steps and burn DVD movie disc. View result on TV set using stand alone DVD player. If there are still some images that are sparkly you can try selecting the Blur box on the Objects and Animation page for that image. Most of the artifacts that bother me on the TV set are caused by jaggies or sharp contrast edges often seen in scenes with leaves or water. If all the pictures still look bad, you could try setting the parameters in NeroVision Express 3 to the following (again, what I use in my DVD movie slideshows) 1. On the first screen, click More button, then Video Options, then DVD-Video tab 2. Quality Setting: High quality Sample format: Progressive Encoding mode: High Quality 2-Pass 3. Back on first screen, click on Edit Movie..., click on Blue Checkmark under the preview window 4. Set volume to 100% if it is not already that value This isn't guaranteed to produce a good looking DVD movie, but it works well for the slideshows I create and using the equipment I have. There are too many parameters The smoothness and resolution (essentially 640x480) of DVD movie slideshows is much lower than what you see when viewing a EXE slideshow file on the computer. But I think the quality is still good on the TV compared to content that is usually watched on TV. Hope that helps a little, Steve Tucson, AZ P.S. After rereading some of your responses to the forum, it's possible your original photo files don't have enough resolution to make a good quality DVD movie disc. Starting with 500x700 pixel images (they are portrait, higher than wider?), they will be resized to 343x480 to fit the DVD format. And depending on the content of the images (lots of detail for example), it may be asking too much of such a small resolution.

Proprietary (Temporary) AVI File Not Deleted Small error, but when the CANCEL button is pressed before the proprietary AVI file is completed, the file is not deleted. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Hi Cheryl, There are a few comments in your original post that don't make sense to me. After clicking Create AVI, you say the AVI looks perfect and syncs perfectly, but it shouldn't. The proprietary AVI P2E creates does not play smoothly or is synced to the music. There are reasons for this, but you don't need to be concerned with them. Nero itself does not create video DVDs. If you are using Nero Vision Express, then everything is ok. You are probably seeing delay in the video portion when you are using the preview mode in Nero Vision Express (when the remote is on the computer screen). This is normal. Burn the DVD and view it in a stand alone DVD player connected to a TV set. The show should play fine. You can also play it in your computer DVD player to check it, though it won't look as good as through the TV set and may stutter depending on what software/hardware you have on your computer. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

I should also add that my most recent slideshow DVD creation gave much better results when the Progressive Video was selected, particularly for diagonal and fast pans. Since there is an Auto option for this parameter, it may be leading to your inconsistent results. But there are also other possible sources for the problem, as well as differences between us in the software/hardware/DVD players we are using. Worth a try, but not sure if it will help. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

My experience doesn't agree with this. For motion, the biggest factors are Smart Anti-Flicker filter on (checked) with Progressive Video selected. If the zoom is straight in or out, there is not much, possibly no difference between Interlace or Progressive on TV screen. There is a large difference when zoom is combined with diagonal pans, particularly with masks like the white frame or fast pans. The next biggest factor I have experienced is the resolution of the photo files not being too far from the resolution of the target player/video standard. CAVEAT: That said, I'm producing DVDs for a standard DVD player connected to a standard TV set using the MPEG2 encoder included in Ulead Moviefactory 2se. The video files created on the DVD are interlaced as required by the DVD standard no matter what the setting is in P2E. I'm not sure why the Progressive setting results in a better DVD, except there may be a conflict between the way the interlace video is output by P2E and how the Moviefactory encoder creates the interlaced video file that goes on the DVD (could be a field order conflict). Other DVD authoring/MPEG2 encoding software and different end targets (such as TVs that can show progressive input, HDTVs, etc) may require different parameters for optimum quality. Just wanted to point out your suggestions didn't produce the best output for the hardware I have and there probably isn't a general way to state which parameter settings create the best viewing experience. And this is just for one setup (and not the issue of what settings should be used to best cover the range of hardware of many customers). As I mentioned in the post above, the creation of DVD movies is complex involving a multitude of hardware and software parameters, as well as being in the midst of a standards change to higher definitions. The Deluxe version should be a big step forward by eliminating the chance of mixups between two programs made by different companies, but I hope it doesn't delay the release of the final P2E Version 5. Still waiting for the text comments and giving feedback on the implementation. Steve Tucson, AZ USA

I understand now what you are talking about. If you make a revision and use the same name, then Ulead will use the previously encoded MPEG2 file. Although it's admirable that you are making efforts to compensate for other software's shortcomings, these types of problems could also be addressed in program notes, README or help files. The way I see it, creating an odd and unexpected behavior in P2E (changing the filename after presenting the user with a Save As dialog) in order to correct for an odd and unexpected behavior in a 3rd party program isn't solving the problem of having an odd and expected behavior. It just moves it from one to the next (and unfairly to P2E). I know the hopes are that the Deluxe version with DVD Authoring software will solve most the issues with creating DVD slideshow movies, but I'm afraid the questions will just shift from P2E to why doesn't the software work with this burner, these drivers, this OS, play on that DVD player, etc. There are reasons outside the software programmer's control that this field (DVD movie creation) is filled with quality issues. But the WnSoft team has surprised me before, so hopes are still high! Steve Tucson, AZ USA

Thank you for sharing your ideas, transitions files and bandwidth. Your work has enhanced the value of P2E by showing what can be done and how. I like this one because it gives a very different method of transition and presentation and at the same time sticking close to the basic idea of a slideshow - showing a series of photos. I particularly like the idea of showing a stack of photos and removing them one at a time. Thanks and good job, Steve Tucson, AZ USA

The varibility is not surprising given the number of variables involved in creating a DVD movie file (for any program, not just P2E). Assuming you are using motion in your shows (P2E 5 betas), the most important factors I have found for P2E are Smart Anti-Flicker Filter (checked) and resizing the images closer to the resolution of DVD if your original photo files are large. The on-the-fly resizing algorithm used by P2E is not as good as those in photo editing programs. I have found 1024x768 works well for the resolution of the photos files (it doesn't matter what the screen resolution is). Large zooms require keeping a higher resolution. Using the Create Custom option with the P2E Codec and setting the resolution to 720x480 will show more of the image and maintain the correct aspect ratio of the image (P2E crops the output by putting 40 pixel black bars on either side of the image). If you have particularly bad looking slides in a set of otherwise good looking ones (on the TV), try clicking the Blur checkbox on the Properties tab for those slides in the Object and Animation window. Many of the unsightly artifacts in DVD movie files are caused by sharp or contrasty edges found in some photographs (often seen in leafy trees and water). I would avoid using a non MPEG2 codec (such as MPEG4) since this will only introduce a cycle of decompression/compression to the process. MPEG2 is the format for standard DVD movie files. Steve Tucson, AZ USA