Casey

Folks, You may want to take a look at this short article: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...us_030531181432 While $850 for ONLY the body of a camera may seem ridiculously expensive to some, compare it with the price of other prosumer/professional camera bodies. ALso, it's a product of Olympus and Kodak, so odds are that it will be a quality product. A few notes of interest with this camera... it's the first of the "4/3" format of cameras where you'll be able to use your 35 mm lenses. It uses an interesting "ultrasonic cleaning" system every time it is turned on to knock off any dust that may have gotten on the sensor. It is physically smaller (thank goodness!) than some of the other mammoth DSLRs. This camera may be the one that opens up professional level digital photography to the masses. I have yet to see any full size images that it has captured, but if they are in a league with the new Canon, sign me up!

Yeah, well.... that's why I said, "mortally affordable" . I did a search on that camera and this is what the blurb says: Shoot crystal-clear high-definition video with the JVC GR-HD1 digital video camcorder. By utilizing a 1.18-megapixel progressive-scan CCD and JVC proprietary processing, the GR-HD1 camcorder records and plays back at 750 lines of resolution at 30 frames per second, recording MPEG2 video to MiniDV tape. While it is technically high definition at 750 lines of resolution, the 1080i format (with 1,080 lines of resolution) is the REAL DEAL. Also, note that this camera saves the video in MPEG2 format. I don't like that. I guess they had to do that in order to avoid creating yet another tape format for HD. But if you're going to work with high definition, you may as well go all the way and work in uncompressed format. My unsubstantiated estimate is that at it should produce about 500 MB per minute uncompressed in file size! The 1080i format *should* use about 1 GB per minute uncompressed. WOW! With file sizes like that, I'll have to retire my IBM XT... or maybe upgrade to that new fangled 286 processor. Oh, for those of you in the market for a high end video camera, you might want to check this site out: http://production.digitalmedianet.com/2002...mbg_nab2002.htm Warning: you'd best be sitting down when you look at the prices.

Ah, well if I had a HDTV I wouldn't even bother with DVD. The resolution of HDTV is *theoretically* 1,440 X 1,080 pixel equivalent and DVD is only 720 X 480 (or 720 X 576 for those of us in Europe). I'd connect it directly to the PC via the LCD connector (I've forgotten the name of that connectory just now) and watch a show at the upper native resolution of the screen. Now wouldn't THAT give you delusions of being Spielberg? At that point the images would retain the subtlety that the conversion to video loses. One interesting thing is that there are no "mortally affordable" video cameras for High Definition, but when they ARE available, everyone with one will have the capability to create movies that will scale to the "small theatre" level. Another thing people will beg for when Igor enables AVI export is to be able to import video clips. Then Igor's headaches will REALLY start if he tries to accomodate that request.

Folks, Just wanted to interject a few warnings. If you attempt to capture a PTE show via the S-video or composite out ports from your video card to a digital video camera you're exporting an ANALOG signal. So that means that the fundamental digital source that PTE works with is converted to analog (adding generational loss), then is converted BACK into a digital format (again, adding generational loss) and if you are exporting at any resolution besides 720 X 480 (NTSC) then you're also getting degradation due to resizing. If you are exporting via S-video or composite cables to a VCR then you have the same digital to analog generational loss AND you introduce the resolution loss due to the limited resolution of the VCR tape (max is 400 lines, I believe). This doesn't even touch upon the PITA factor (Pain In The Ass). My recommendation is to save your project files and wait for Igor to give us the ability to export to AVI. THEN video will have a much lower PITA factor and the results should be superior. Another warning.... Video is a fundamentally different animal than a computer based show, even if they ostensibly achieve the same end. I'm willing to wager that two things will happen almost immediately upon release of the AVI export capability: incessant begging for "menu creation" and demands of Igor to make the process easier. I encourage everyone to be patient with Igor. Last warning (this one for Igor). You mentioned in an earlier post that video transitions can be very smooth even with the limited frame rate. Yes, indeed they can, but there is a very important reason WHY they can be. Motion blur is the reason why. Here is an experiment for those interested (and have a DVD player). Put a movie in the deck and do a frame by frame advance on a "high action" scene. The blurring you see in the frames look TERRIBLE if you look at one cel (frame) at a time. When you show them at 25 or 30 frames per second though, that blur makes all the difference. Purpose-made encoders can introduce motion blur, but I'm not aware of any of the free encoders that allow this. If you do not introduce motion blur then you'll get a "jumpy" appearance in high translational (high movement) scenes. Note, this is not a death knell! It only means that you'll have to be conscientious about your choice of transitions and your transitions' durations. Fades should not be affected by this as there is no pixel translation. If you choose to use "movement" transitions, be sure to use longer durations. You'll have to experiment to see what the minimum acceptible duration is for your tastes. So Igor.... any idea WHEN?

Bruman, I second Dana's opinion on this. We've invited the opportunity to contrast the capabilities of other, similar programs for the past three years here and I trust we'll continue in that fashion. It is the PROMOTION of other software packages that is uncouth, not the discussion of their merits. The first point I'd like to make is rather than think in terms of "this OR that", perhaps it may be more useful to think in terms of "this AND that" because PTE and PSG market niches only overlap partially. I use PTE for my computer based shows and PSG for my video shows. PTE has superior composition tools (specifically in the area of transition placement) and is very robust. PSG on the other hand is slanted more towards video... at least that's my take on it... and does a very good job of it. I would caution you to reconsider making VCDs for your television based shows. The resolution for plain vanilla VCD uses up about half the potential resolving capability of a television and the mediocre quality of the format demonstrates this. VCD is fine for VHS quality movies and the like, but for creating a show specifically to show off the beauty of images, I suggest you consider SVCD as a baseline. As loujan mentions, the quality improves dramatically with the higher resolutions (and bitrates) of the MPG2 based video shows. I recommend also going to VCDHelp.com to download their "capatibility" CDs to check to see if your DVD player will play SVCDs, XSVCDs, MiniDVDs, etc. While the duration of a show that you make with these other mediums are limited (somewhere between 15 and 30 minutes depending on the format), the improved quality makes up for the brevity. Casey

A word of caution, folks. Don't let your expectations get the better of you. The limitations of video may be a disappointment to some people. It can be very disappointing to go from 1,024 X 768 pixel resolution at 85 frames/sec refresh rate of your tv monitor to 25 or 30 frames per second at 720 X 480 (or 576) pixel resolution on a television. But if you can accept those limitations, then have at it! A few other points to consider, Igor. Uncompressed AVI would be of particular interest to me, but I do warn people that uncompressed AVI at DVD resolution amounts to 213 MB PER MINUTE in file size. That may seem daunting, but the benefit is that you can do additional editing (video effects, multitrack audio editing, etc.) without generational quality loss, assuming you have a video editor (such as Adobe Premiere) for "post production". Note that older machines or those with slower hard drives may have difficulty rendering uncompressed AVI. That isn't as big of a problem as it sounds like, because rendering in compressed AVI (using Indeo's excellent FREE AVI codec) is almost as good and with MUCH smaller file sizes. I also should mention that there is a very good FREE MPEG encoder called "TMPGEnc" (it stands for "Tsumami Mpeg", incidentally). It isn't very fast, but the quality is pretty good and there are wealth of options available. There are other free encoders, but I think TMPGEnc is the best of the free ones. Also be warned that creating a 30 minute show can take a long time to render. This depends heavily on the encoder that you use and the rendering options you select. If you're SERIOUS about making very high quality, you might consider looking at Cinemacraft's "Basic" encoder, which costs $58. It does a very good job and is relatively fast. According to those that know more about it than I, this encoder is fundamentally the same one that they market for $2,000 (albeit with fewer rendering options). Probably the cheapest/easiest options is to buy Nero Burning ROM's MPEG encoder plugin, for those of you using Nero. I think I paid $16 for it and while it doesn't have the highest quality - nor is it the fastest - it is convenient and you have good chance at creating a "working" disk. The slide show market has changed radically in the three+ years we've been begging for video output from PTE and the competition that has emerged in this time that have based their strengths on their video capabilities are stiff competition indeed. Microsoft shows signs of getting into the market with "Movie Maker 2.1" as it is a FREE download, it will necessarily garner support from a lot of people. Photodex and Sonic Foundry also make very good products. I am more than curious how video will be implmented into PTE. Let's hope lives up to everyone's expectations. Casey

Thomas, no, it only means that you have the codec for DV1 on your computer. Media Player *normally* doesn't come with this, but when you attempted to view the AVI either the program went to the internet automatically to find the codec OR, your NLE (Non Linear Editor) installed the codec when you installed the program.

Thomas, Sorry, I didn't see your replay earlier. Uncompressed AVI (DV1) can be converted to compressed AVI with the use of codecs like Indeo's codec. I think it is version 5.10 or 5.11 and it is also free. You *should* be able to see a compressed AVI on your computer, but you probably CAN'T see an uncompressed AVI unless you have the required codecs installed (which come with most Non Linear Editors). Casey

Folks, I found an interesting site for "sounds". Not music, but just sounds. Animal sounds, industrial, holidays, households, musical instruments, etc. They're all free and they come in a host of formats. You might want to check this site out for some interesting additions to a slide show: http://www.findsounds.com/ Casey

Thomas, a few points... I agree with bfreas that TMPGEnc is pretty much the best available free encoder, but keep in mind that there are TWO MPG file formats (not counting DivX/MPG4). VCD disks are encoded with MPG1 and DVDs and SVCDs are encoded using MPG2. TMPGEnc does them both, so that shouldn't be a problem. Don't be intimidated by all the encoding options available in TMPGEnc because there are numerous help sites on the web in how to use it properly. I recommend going to VCD Help.com as a starting point in how to do just about anything with video. THere are also two dominant AVI formats. The first is an uncompressed version that you get from a video camera. The avi files for this (DV1) are HUGE. On the order of 213 MB per minute of video! The other avi version is DV2 and is a compressed version that varies in quality according to the degree of compression used. DV2 is the more commonly seen unless you work with video a lot. I don't believe that Windows Media Player currently supplies a codec capable of viewing DV1 video. Hope this helps.

Ernst, I know what you mean! All those hundreds of posts and being the 'oldest' in the old forum and now... but a babe! Oh well. Can you believe how much P2E has changed in the past three years?

I agree with Stuart. Igor, it's a WONDER how you've gotten so much functionality into such a small package! Who would have thought that a program that does so much can still fit on a floppy disk? I don't know how many 'ol timers were here for the first few wish lists that we posted, but if you can recall the things we were pining for, damn near all of them have been answered. How's that for an effective forum, eh?

I am for the "more than 6 categories". I agree with Cath, however I'd also add "Random Complaints, Irrelevant Bitching and Generally Useless Posts". Others to consider are, "Personal Assaults", "The Weather" and "Pet Peeves".

Fear not! We're here just lurking. I've been busy posting on other forums, but I always come by to see what's happening.

Buck, the short answer to your question is yes, but you may not want to go to the trouble to do so. It may not even be possible if you don't have the necessary hardware. Instead, you should consider programs dedicated to creating video slide shows. Note that the results will be quite a bit different that what you may have become accustomed to with a computer show.

IT's a pity, isn't it? It seems like one of the key obstacles to creating your own "home audio studio" is the inavailability of affordable digital microphones. The gap between one of those little Logitech microphones and a serious microphone is HUGE and I haven't found anything there. I even went to a major audio hardware supplier to ask and they sort of looked at me like I was an idiot. They have analogue mics at an affordable quality/cost level, but not digital.

Folks, a few things... first, I agree that Igor has been wise to NOT discourage commentary of other programs. We'd just do it elsewhere, right? Also, notice we keep coming back HERE. That alone says something. But I also agree that extolling the virtues of a competitor's product (even one that do not directly compete with P2E, like PhotonTV or ProShow which make television based shows) is not kosher. I suggest that if we want to discuss - or advocate - other products that we do so on Bart's "Multimedia" forums. He's more than happy to support a venue for such discusssions.

The short answer to your question Oli is yes. Technically, PTE can support (if memory serves) presentations up to 32 Gigabytes in size. I defy any one human being to able to focus unwavering attention on such a gargantuan slide show as that! I do not envy you the task of CREATING such a behemoth, Oli. Especially if you are concerned about transitions, music and order... but good luck.

Juliochaves, I don't think WNSOFT plans to make export to VCD/SVCD/DVD. There are a lot of such programs out there now and might I suggest Photodex's ProShow Gold. It exports to video pretty easily and has close to 300 transitions, synchronization and all the rest. Just keep in mind that the results may be a disappointment to you compared to a computer based slide show (due to frame rate and resolution). But it sure is nice to move to the "big screen"!

In terms of reverse engineering, the vernacular here is "decompiling" and there are freeware tools on the net that will do it almost effortlessly and you're left with everything that you put into the executable file.

Gee... big response! Not quite as elementary as I'd suggested, folks! The screen capture programs access what is called the "screen buffer", which is created by the computer in the video card. It's sort of like the computer creates one whole frame so many times per second via the video card. The frame buffer is the last stop before going to your monitor. Disabling access to the frame buffer isn't really that difficult, although it's not a technique that is used as often as it could be. I'm getting out of my depth here, but I understand that it has something to do with the various flavors of frame buffers (which is a hardware device). As far as encrypting/decryping goes, the idea is the PTE does the encryping when the exe is created and the .exe does the decrypting when it is run. But if you decompile the exe the images will still be encrypted and useless for stealing. You'd have to figure out the decryption algorhythm to make a go of it and THAT is beyond 99.9% of people. For those using a digital signal (LCD panels), prohibiting sceen captures is a snap. It's the analog monitors that are still difficult (and dominant).

I have an idea that *may* work for those of us trying to prohibit people from taking images from a presentaiton. Disabling the print screen buttons is no big deal. The problem is that you can de-compile an .exe file and get the images. It seems to me that you could ENCRYPT the image files as they are written to the .exe files. That would stop 99.9% of people from getting your images...... I think.

Just one suggestion about the sub-topics. LET THERE BE A NEWBIE QUESTION SECTION!!!!

I told you... sometimes seemingly bad circumstances can be taken advantage of and made into rare opportunities. I really like the IDB forums. Very slick and professional looking. Now.... shall we get started? One question.... is this smiley a ninja or somebody looking into a sideways keyhole?