Lin Evans

Hi Ken, The new graphical engine seems to do a great job - most of the images were about 2640x1760 to allow for the zoom... Best regards, Lin

Excellent presentation Barry - lots of drama in those beautiful clouds... Fine photography and loved the blends on transitions... Best regards, Lin

A test of image quality with new graphical engine and of web safe executable function..... http://www.lin-evans.org/sevenfive/fineart4.zip (about 36 meg zipped file containing PTE exe and data file) Lin

Hi Igor, I already see a big improvement in the handling of text zoom. It's "much" smoother - I just compiled an older show which had text zoom in the beginning and the improvement is quite evident - thanks Igor !! Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, One thing you might add ... Since many videos, especially those downloaded from places like Youtube have long file names that may be difficult to remember, it is always possible to "see" a list of videos with a particular extension (.mov, .flv, .avi, etc.) by using the old "DOS" trick of "wild card" by typing a "star" or "asterisk" followed by a file extension. Example: To see all files with the extension .flv just type: *.flv into the file name then press the ENTER keyboard key. Doing this will result in seeing all the files in the folder with the extension .flv. Likewise, *.mov will result in all files with the extension .mov being displayed, etc. This way it's not necessary for the user to actually remember the exact file name, but they can choose it from the list. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, PTE 7.x doesn't allow nested Mask Containers, but you may have multiple "Masks" within a single Mask Container, which I "think" is what Jose's question is about.... Best regards, Lin

Eric, It couldn't be easier. 1. You set the video in Objects and Animations screen Properties Tab to "mute audio." 2. Go to Project Option, Music Tab 3. Type in the file name of the video. If you can't remember the name, at least remember the extension. Navigate to the folder where your video resides. You can then type *.flv in the file name for example and see all the .flv files there You could type *.mov and see all the .mov files, etc. 4. Once you have the video name in the Music Track then click the waveform and do with it as you would with any music or sound track. You can also click the "Customize" tab and use any of the properties as you would with any music.... How could you possibly have issues with the above? How could it be any easier? Lin

Hi David, Perhaps there is lots of interest, but not a lot of "comment" because Igor explained it pretty succinctly. It indeed does provide a perfect "work-around" and perhaps in 7.5 can be "formalized" to auto mute, find the video without the user having to remember all the "specifics" of the name and bring up the waveform for audio control of video. Best regards, Lin

Hi Charlie, I made the zip backup with PTE so all images "should" be there - tell me which are reported missing and I'll try to be sure they are all included... I just extracted the file into a new folder and all the images are there. Red, Blue and Green circle - that's all in this sample. It's not an example of the complete "olympic" rings - just a sample to show you how to use masking to do the interlock.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Charlie, There are a couple ways. You can do it like David did on his sample using two "partial" rings for each color, or you can do it with masks. Maybe David can show you a simplified sample just using two rings. I'll see if I can find one I made using masks and post it later. Here it is: http://www.lin-evans.org/demo/olympicringspte.zip Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, Though the features are used by only a few who post shows, the "macro" capabilities of "Insert Text Template" are quite important to keep and perhaps even expand on. Already we have had one person who left PTE for a time then came back and downloaded a beta copy and couldn't find "Text Comments." Photographers, especially, often want to include metadata from the IPTC and EXIF information when their shows are of "informative" rather than "presentation" type. So whichever way you eventually decide, it will be very useful to make it clear to the new user that this feature is present and usable in PTE. Perhaps the reason you have not seen this feature used is that most slideshows presented to our audience on the forum are presentation types rather than informational type shows. Educators who use PTE often use these features but rarely, if ever, post their work on the slideshow forum. Best regards, Lin

Thanks Igor, I understand now !! Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, It appears that clicking either 40 or 46 brings the link to 40. It doesn't appear that 46 (First Look at PTE 7.5 is available....) Best regards, Lin

My suggestion would be to download the latest non-beta version where you have the ability to add comments several ways. Beta versions do not always have full functionality and there is apparently no "comments" feature on the Main screen. You can always add text by right clicking on any object in the Objects list on the Objects and Animations screen and choosing "Add Text or Hyperlink," but the "comments" feature appears to be missing at this time from the beta versions. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, I understand - what I suggested is that the "appearance" of "rope-like" strands which you described generally is indicative of aliasing. If the original image did not appear with "stair-step" aliasing, but the image resulting from creation of the video "did" have this aliasing appearance, that evidence "suggests" interpolation. As you know, a curved line created with square or rectangular pixels will display such aliasing at any angle other than 45, 90 or 180 degrees. Anti-aliasing blurs the edges to facilitate the appearance of a continuous smooth line, but only two things that I'm aware of will change this. Excessive sharpening will defeat anti-aliasing blur and cause a "rope-like" appearance and interpolation whether downsampling or upsampling can exacerbate such a situation. Not knowing (at the time I responded) whether the original size of the created image was equal to the display size in your created videos I suggested that perhaps interpolation via the codec may have played a role. If the Photoshop image was created at the video display size then there would be no need for interpolation. If the same image appears "rope-like" in one video and not in another, then something in the video processing chain (PTE, the video codec, etc.) has affected the image. Not having actually seen your output, I can only guess at the cause based on your description of the results. I think it would be fairly easy to take a few seconds worth of slides and create multiple videos using MP4 h.264, Xvid and whichever other codecs you might want to test and make samples which could be run on various different display devices (TV, LCD Displays, CRT displays, etc.) to see what results might occur. It would be interesting to try to determine the cause of your observed results. Best regards, Lin

Hi Joy, I'm outputting the MP4 h.264 directly from PTE's Video Builder at 1280x720 pixels and comparing it to the same show output via PTE's AVI creation feature and choosing the 'Custom AVI", Xvid codec at 1280x720 pixels at 59.94 fps. Dave apparently has access to MPEG4-ASP which will be used in the auto-creation of AVI via PTE 7.5. I don't have that one so can't discuss it. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, There will "always" be interpolation unless the original image was captured at the final display resolution (pixel count). That is, unless your camera used to take the images or the photoshop settings for creating the images were at the exact display resolution used in the video/slideshow, interpolation will happen either with PTE or in the process of making the video. Interpolation happens on both the upsample and downsample steps with all good software in use today for photo processing.... I don't know what the default settings are for MPEG4-ASP because I don't have that as an option. However, there is no reason to assume that they would be identical. I agree, it would be ideal to have several people do similar testing on identical original slideshows. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, I guess it depends on how one defines "quality." If with one technology (call it A) the animation is jerky and not smooth, while with the other (call it 'B' - the animation is perfect - I would say that "B" is qualitatively better than "A". On the other hand, if the image quality of "A" for minimal animation is better than the image quality of "B" for the same image, then in such a case "A" is qualitatively better than "B". I could see no image quality difference between the show created with Xvid and the one right out of PTE with MP4 h.264 in the case of my demo show and viewed at 1280x760 on a 40" Samsung LED television, but the animation was perfect with the Xvid version and not smooth at all with the MP4 h.264 version. A "rope-like" appearance of thin curved lines such as you experienced indicates poor interpolation or low quality resolution on the original. Since it looked fine on the MP4 h.264 version, I would "think" that the original resolution was sufficient but that when it was enlarged for display via Xvid the "interpolation" was bad or perhaps the enlargement was done with an inferior algorithm. Having not tried one of the wire-frame objects with either, I can't really comment, but with all the animation and images in my demo show, the Xvid at 40" via the Samung was flawless and virtually indistinguishable from the exe version. Why we would have such wide variance in observed results is the real question. Who knows, it may have been something in the version of Xvid codec you used or perhaps the settings which caused the difference. It is worth experimenting with, however, to see if we can explain the differences. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, This is one for Igor to look into. A search of LumenLux reveals your new "Moosewood" handle as well as "Guest - LumenLux." This same situation I see with at least one other person "theDom" as well. Something isn't right. All posts are apparently still there, but the handle "Guest" precedes your log-in name. We'll get Igor's attention on this and get it fixed ASAP... Best regards, Lin

Hi Roger, Looks great to me. I've never understood why some people like to banter about words like "snapshots" to describe someone's work unless they intend it to be insulting. No, the photos were not taken in a "studio" with sets and fixed lighting, but that's certainly not necessary for an image to qualify as a "photograph," and if there is a sound track with the photos it's an "AV" in my book. Well named and the song perfectly described the event and crowd. Nice use of effects also... Best regards, Lin

Hi Joy, I found it - here's a couple slides with background and transitions. You should be able to drop these two in a show, substitute your images and copy/paste one of them as many times as you need to act as the template for replacement. http://www.learntoma...wreflection.zip Best regards, Lin

Hi Joy, I made the original show about five years ago and don't have a template of any kind. I just use it these days as a test for smoothness of systems since it really works out the video card. I'll see if I can find my PTE source for it and maybe you can delete everything in the beginning and just replace the images I used for the last part with your own. Actually, you could just choose a single slide from that section, copy and paste it half as many times as you have slides then replace the existing images with your own. Essentially that's all a template consists of anyhow. If I can find it I'll save a single file with the PTE code for you. Best regards, Lin

Hi Joy, I've got to disagree a little here, especially if you have complex animations. The MP4 h.264 output from PTE is excellent and very close if not exactly like the exe quality as long as you do not have complex animations. If you do, they will not play as smoothly on your computer "or" on your television in my experience. The very "best" way to produce a video of complex animations which I have found is by using the XVID codec. You may want to read this post and consider downloading and installing this codec to use. Playing back the video on a computer will also require this codec be installed on the system doing the playback, but it's not necessary for playback on your television. The output, in my experience, is virtually indistinguishable from an exe of the same HD dimensions. http://www.picturest...h__1#entry96318 Best regards, Lin

Hi Isabel, If you have a webpage of your own, or would consider purchasing the storage space from a host company, you can easily put videos on your own link. I have always done this myself. I use Xara Web Developer 7 myself to load my MP4's from PTE. You can have them in any "quality" you like which is supported by the video standard you choose such as AVI, Flash, MP4 h.264, etc. Xara accepts the MP4 h.264 output of PTE perfectly. You don't have to actually build a website, just create a folder to hold your video and software such as Xara creates the necessary player and code. You simply provide your viewers a link such as you would for Youtube, etc. Of course you do not get as many random "looks" as with a huge site such as Youtube, but you will have complete creative control. Vimeo changed their API and instantly made the code used by Wnsoft, Photodex and other companies who had automated uploading capabilities obsolete. When they were approached by Wnsoft to obtain the new parameters, they refused to release the information and essentially said that they were not interested in supporting slideshows with still images, etc. They gave one of the dumbest (in my opinion) reasons I've ever heard. They said that they believed it was "too easy" for people to upload images which they had no copyrights for. As if it's not "just as easy" to upload video one has no copyrights for. This attitude made me pull any support I had for Vimeo and delete my slideshows from their servers. Best regards, Lin