Lin Evans

Hi Isabel, Actually, it is well worth the upgrade. As with all versions, the upgrade to the basic PTE program is free and you only need to pay for the two year cycle upgrade of Video Builder. There are lots of great new features which you will enjoy. To begin with, audio now can be faded in and out, you can have multiple tracks and even a waveform envelope to visually handle synchronization with images. It's possible to set where to begin within a song and also to set fade-in and fade-out. You can do many neat things with audio and there will be even more improvements with version 7.5 which will begin beta testing before long. We can now drop in video clips and treat them like any other object. This means it's possible to size, position, use three dimensional transfers and lots of other neat things. PTE now has built in masking and borders around images, etc. Zooming in and out and panning are very easy to do as well as myriad other things which were not available early on. Once you get version 7.0 up and running, you may want to avail yourself of the many free tutorials available. I have created over 40 myself which will help you quickly learn the ropes. I will give you two links. The first is a "shortcut" to my own tutorials which are here on the forum as well as on my own website. Mine are in avi format so you can watch and listen while I walk you through the various features and how to accomplish different goals. There are numerous other tutorials as well and it's worth looking at them in no particular order since they are mostly independent of each other and don't make too many assumptions about prior experience. http://www.learnpte.com (click on Tutorials link - this is on my website) http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?/forum/8-tutorials-and-articles/ (internal link to all tutorials) Best regards, Lin

Hi Isabel, Long time ... Glad to see you back here! Actually, it's no longer possible to directly upload to Vimeo because they refused to release their new and changed API protocols with some lame excuse, and attempted to "hold up" users for fees. In general, it was an unsatisfactory situation which prevented both Wnsoft and Photodex (Proshow Gold and Proshow Producer) users from automatic uploads. In order to upload to Vimeo, you will have to create your MP4 and upload manually as in days before the automatic upload capabilities. There was a good bit of discussion about this issue when it first happened. The principals of Vimeo apparently don't particularly care for slideshow people and are courting only video producers. They gave a really poor excuse that they thought it was "too easy" for slideshow people to violate copyrights (ignoring that it is just as easy to "copy and use" video clips as it is to copy and use still images.). In short, some of us including myself have simply boycotted Vimeo since. I got the distinct impression that we were not welcome there unless we wanted to pay them so I pulled all my support for that venue. This, of course, is my personal opinion and in no way reflects any official view by Wnsoft, etc. Best regards, Lin

Hi Thomas, Although there is presently no way to manipulate the audio on a video clip other than to mute it (this will be addressed in the next issue of PTE), it actually, isn't too difficult to achieve what you describe right now with PTE - Audacity isn't needed. There are at least two ways to accomplish this with PTE. The way I would approach this is as follows. First complete the slideshow and pay no attention to the audio - that is run your PTE audio mp3 background "and" your video complete with audio. Next, carefully look at the precise time your video clip begins and ends. Next, duplicate the PTE MP3 on the same track (insert the same audio selection twice). On the first iteration, use either the waveform envelope or simply the "duration" of the PTE track and the fade out feature to fade out at the precise time the video clip begins. Then for the second iteration (duplicate MP3) set the audio to begin at the precise place on the mp3 time where the track one ended and fade in at the precise time the video clip is expiring. This may "sound" complex, but really is quite easy to do and involves start times, duration and offset. Please download and watch my AVI tutorials # 25 and # 27 here for clarification and instructions on precisely how to achieve this: http://www.learnpte....earn/learn.html (click on "tutorials) for # 27 In this zipped archive are both a PTE sample to play with and an exe format tutorial. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, Do you just want to attenuate the sound, or "mute" the sound? The PTE mute actually "mutes" or "kills" the sound completely. To attenuate or diminish the volume level, you would need to do it in a video editor, but I assumed when you said you wanted to "mute" the sound you meant stop it entirely which is generally what "mute" means. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, There is no need to edit your clip to mute the sound. Just put the original or converted clip in PTE, go to Objects and Animations Properties Tab and click beside "Mute Audio." Best regards, Lin

Hi Jean-Claude, Sorry, I did miss your post and that's a great program which will be "very" helpful. I couldn't get your link to work - so I looked up your post and edited your post to link to it. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, Actually, there is an undocumented feature you might want to experiment with. This feature will be documented in the next version of PTE, but for now it is still "experimental" in nature. While in the Objects and Animations screen, hold down the Ctrl Key and Press "E". You can then move all keyframes to the right by typing in a positive number and to the left by putting a "minus" sign and a number. You can also move them by using the up and down arrows. You can't select individual keyframes to move - this undocumented feature works only on all keyframes together, but it might help you. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, There is no way to actually "split" a slide, but you can "duplicate" it by copy/paste in the main slide list and then rearrange the time for either. The keyframes can be handled in two ways automatically, depending on whether or not you check "scale keyframes in objects (on time change)" If you click and check this feature, then when you shorten or lengthen the time for an individual slide, the actual relationship between adjacent keyframes remains constant. For example, if you were to have a pan followed by a zoom in and zoom out programmed, and you had placed a checkmark in this block, then changed the time display for this slide from 10 seconds to six seconds, everything would happen exactly as it did before only it would happen faster. The same "relative" times between keyframes would be maintained. So if you were to take actions which you had programmed and assign them a "percentage" of overall time, this percentage based on the total slide time would remain the same after you had changed the slide's display time. On the other hand, if you do "not" check this and you add time to the slide, the actions will remain identical except the extra time would be added after your keyframes. But what if you "subtracted time?" Then if the new time were "less" than the time encompassed by the keyframes, you would loose whatever was previously happening in that time period chopped off the end. So you "probably" will be able to do what you are attempting by duplicating (copy/paste) the first slide then applying the above rules. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, Actually, though what you want to do is not terribly difficult, it is rather complex and you "probably" would be advised to buy theDom's template and study it to see how it's achieved. When you put multiple images on a single background, you have two basic issues to deal with. The first issue is that each image lies on a separate layer. as you zoom in on an image, unless it's the top layer image, the other images will remain visible unless you keyframe their opacity to zero. Then to see subsequent images, you must keyframe them back to full opacity. This process must be repeated for each image unless you duplicate the original image on subsequent slides with the image to be zoomed in on in the top layer. Perhaps that's the easiest way to accomplish this, but you need to understand how layers work and such. The bottom line is that this is a fairly grandiose project for your first one. I can make you a sample and show you how to do it, but I fear you will get lost in the process unless you first get a good background in using PTE. The essence is that you create your initial image complete with all the small images which might be pinned to a bulletin board with push-pins (made of small png files with transparency). You then copy and paste this first slide as many times as you have images to scroll to and zoom in on. Then you modify each subsequent slide by moving the image to be zoomed in on to the top layer so that when you zoom, none of the other images will be superimposed on the main subject. Then you simply go to each successive image, zoom in on the subject, and then zoom back out to the original frame. It will "appear" that you are always returning to the same image of the "set" of pictures, but really you will be going through the "set" of duplicate image but with the one you intend to zoom in on being on the top layer of the one displayed. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ken, There is something wrong with the forum software. I've noticed this in the past. When you added the link, all the internal code suddenly became visible and it was almost impossible to read the text. The screen image looked very much like Microsoft Word when you use "Reveal Codes" so all the supposedly hidden formatting codes which give line breaks, paragraph breaks, etc., were visible. I've noticed for some time now that when I try to add links for my tutorials, things just don't work right. Sometimes what I type disappears, sometimes it goes nuts like it did after your added the link today. What Rick saw was a total mess and I'm absolutely certain that's not how you left it after adding the link. It's a forum software issue and we need to have Igor look at it and see what is happening because it can be very annoying. I think Rick thought someone intentionally made a mess of his post, and obviously that wasn't the case. He really "should" know better and not fly off the handle until he found out what happened - but that's something only he can control. The point is that you were only doing what you are supposed to do as a moderator and the software created a mess. I tried to straighten it out and I "hope" it doesn't happen again, but there is no guarantee until we find out what is causing the issue. Best regards, Lin

Hi Rick, You probably should wait and find out what happened before jumping to conclusions and getting all pushed out of shape. It appears that a forum software snafu has caused the issue from what I can determine. The only thing that was done by the moderator was to "add" a link to Beechbrook. I'll see if I can fix the problem.... I "think" it's fixed. There is an issue with the forum software when trying to add links. It's not working correctly and sometimes does this - there is absolutely no intent by "anyone" at Wnsoft or moderators to do anything but "help" make it easier to reach Beechbrook. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, The values you are seeing refer to the innate storage capacity of different types of media. "Standard" DVD's (DVD-5) have 4.7 gigabytes of capacity of which "most" is available to write your data to, but some is reserved for necessary housekeeping files. The 8.5 is for double (layered) - correction - correct Gayland - thanks! DVD media (DVD-9) which some use but not seen nearly as often. Some of the relatively tiny (physical diameter) DVD blanks (DVD-1) used by primarily by advertisers only hold 1.4 gig. There are also other types, but the line has to be drawn somewhere.... See below for a better explanation... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD Best regards, Lin

Hi Xaver, The two which I have used which work well for me are Nero and Ulead Movie Factory with their new plugin. There are several others which I have "heard" work well, but I have no personal experience with. I'm very confident to recommend Nero because it's probably the most compatible with more hardware. http://www.afterdawn.com/guides/archive/burn_avchd_with_nero_burning_rom.cfm Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, I think perhaps you might be thinking of the "media" type and perhaps using the term DVD in a generic sense. DVD has a very specific meaning and that is essentially either NTSC or PAL resolution. Neither of these are anywhere close to HD quality. However, and depending on what type of player your customer has - it "may" be possible to burn an AVCHD format on a DVD media blank. AVCHD is very similar to BluRay in quality, but in order to play an AVCHD the end user must have a BluRay player which is compatible with playing AVCHD. Not all are such. AVCHD can be burned without a BluRay burner by any of several software packages. It uses a standard DVD burner and standard DVD media to burn this format to the media, but it can only be played back with a compatible BluRay player. The down side is that not all BluRay players will recognize AVCHD and the other down side it that you are limited in the amount of data you can physically fit on a DVD media blank at the much higher HD resolution. If you have time to experiment, you could burn a sample and send them to test. It "might" be the answer you are looking for. Best regards, Lin

Or just click on "File" "Create Backup in Zip". This will zip up your entire project with all necessary files. Post this using "MediaFire" or other service and we can take a look and see how to correct your problem. Best regards, Lin

Hi, What is the "background" slide? Is it just the black screen of the display or have you placed a jpg, etc., image as your background? If you are using a photo as the background, you will need to set the opacity of the background slide to zero by keyframe also to prevent it from being visible as you change the opacity of other slides. I believe the reason your problem has not yet been solved, is that it's not actually clear "precisely" what you are doing. If you could clearly articulate the situation, I'm certain that we can very quickly solve the issue for you. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, It's really too bad that there is this rift between the aspect ratios of cameras and that chosen by the video entertainment and display manufacturers. The wide format has not been completely accepted by the movie industry. At least here in the U.S., IMAX still generally uses the old aspect ratio pretty much corresponding to the 3:2 of the camera industry for their super resolution 3D output. On the other hand, general cinema productions use the 16:9 or 16:10 (I'm not certain which) ratio commonly seen on home DVD and BluRay movies. It's a difficult thing for the AV enthusiast, because it requires the photographer to either purchase a camera which "allows" shooting by using only a part of the sensor to get the wide angle, or shooting wide all the time so one can "crop" to suit the new format. The video modes automatically "crop" to the 16:9 mode for compliance with the HD 720 or HD 1080 interlaced or progressive protocols. It then sort of forces the AV enthusiast to avoid video in the production, crop the rest to match the video or crop the video to match the stills. Fortunately, we can do it all with PTE because by using the provided features we can effectively crop the video non destructively to match 3:2 or 4:3, etc. We just need to be careful when shooting to again, either shoot wide with stills or constrain the important parts of our video to a reduced width so we can display them to match. It would be so nice if these disparate industries could get in sync.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, The "border" size is actually designated by "pixel" dimensions. I'm not certain why you would see a different size unless your video was "near" the edge of the screen area or if the color was so close to the color of you video that they blend. The border width is absolute but surrounds the image or video and the "position" is based on that. You can change independently change the width or height of the video, and thereby what is actually "displayed" by altering the Canvas size, but the actual "border" should, as far as I know, conform to the outer periphery of your video's dimensions. I would wait until Igor returns and send him a sample to see if there may be a bug of some sort or whether it might have to do with something relative to a particular video. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, LOL - I wasn't clear enough. What I was referring to as "our purposes" was my purposes and Tom's purposes. Actually, on my 40" HD Samsung LED television, I see no relevant differences between 720p and 1080p video from my S30 IS and my very best dSLR HD Video. They are both superb. The "only" differences are that with my full frame dSLR I can use fast lenses and do cinematic shallow depth of field frames. Qualitatively, there are no perceptible differences. Two megapixel resolution doesn't challenge either a good bridge camera or a dSLR. Of course the dSLR "generally" does better at high ISO, but "most" videographer specialists have little desire to shoot video in poor lighting and try to make it noise free for production purposes. Of course if you absolutely need 1080p video, then many of the bridge cameras are not the right tool. On the other hand, if you need great zoom range then there are only a few lenses such as the Sigma 50-500 OS which will allow decent zoom flexibility for those special needs for the dSLR. With a Canon, Nikon, Sony or other "full frame" model dSLR you get exactly 50-500 mm. With a so called "crop factor" Canon (1.6x) you get 80-800 mm. With a Nikon (1.5x) you get 75-750mm - likewise with Sony and the Sigma SD1. With other Sigma models (SD9, SD10, SD14, SD15) which are 1.7x you get 85-850 mm. So the range with a dSLR "can" be extensive for video, but this is a very large and heavy lens and has some vignetting with wide angle and full frame dSLR's. The beauty of the little bridge camera is that you can easily hand hold and correct for the minimal shake in software. You have a one button push with your thumb while you are shooting stills to "instantly" begin shooting video and the ability to press the shutter release at any time to capture a full resolution still frame while you are shooting video. Then there is that fantastic "up to 140x digital zoom" which really works! It's not a gimmick. There is absolutely no question that PTE needs to support the highest available video resolution. In the next year or so, we will begin to see four megapixel video hit the market. There is already at least one dSLR supporting this - so it's definitely coming. Now how that might translate to a projection screen is still problematic because at least for now, I don't believe there are too many projectors available which support this resolution - I'm not absolutely certain of this, but I've not run across many yet. They are available - just really expensive and not in common use, at least not where I live. Best regards, Lin

Hi Tom, Actually, the "video" feature on the Canon which Eric had prior to going back to a dSLR is as good as the video on nearly any dSLR and more versatile than most dSLR's for video. He had a Canon S30IS which I also have, along with numerous dSLR's and other bridge cameras. The video on the S30 IS is outstanding. The issue is that video on today's dSLR's and bridge cameras doesn't exceed 1080p. In reality, as Igor has mentioned numerous times, there is little difference between 720p and 1080p in terms of what you actually "see" on your HD television. The nice thing about a bridge camera such as the S30 IS the ability to zoom and I mean really "zoom" when doing video. The S30 IS has a 35x zoom range taking one optically from about 24mm to 840mm. The "very usable" digital zoom goes to 140X. I've actually shot "good" images hand-held at 140X which I could not have done with "any" of my other 40 odd dSLR's, bridge cameras or digicams. All this also works with video. As for other options, my best "secondary" video comes from my very small and very portable Nikon 1V which is a 10 megapixel hybrid with a 2.7x crop sensor and removable lens system with excellent video. This little jewel shoots up to 60 frames per second at full 10 megapixel resolution for about 30 frames, will shoot with its mechanical shutter at 10 fps and also do 400 fps and 1200 fps in greatly reduced size video for slow motion. The camera has both an excellent "nearly a megapixel" LCD and a very good EVF. It's not inexpensive, but with an adapter will also take standard Nikon lenses. I use a 10-30mm (27-81mm equiv), a 30-110 mm (81-297mm equiv) and the Nikon adapter with a 55-300 VR (148 - 810mm equiv). Of all my dSLR's and bridge cameras with video capabilities, however, I believe that the little Canon S30IS is by far the most versatile for pure video. Of course the video purists will argue that the ability to shoot with a full frame dSLR and a super fast lens for complete control of depth of field is unequaled and they would be correct. The real issue is, however, how many of us really care about commercial quality video captures? Probably very few. What most are interested in is stability, image quality, zoom capability, proper focus, etc., and for those who want to make a major motion picture, the super expensive full frame sensors and fast lenses are there to be had as long as you have a friendly banker or deep pockets. It's sort of like doing special effects and sophisticated things with PTE. How many of us can afford the $1000 to purchase Adobe AfterEffects? If I had endless resources I would buy it for the "warp" video stabilization alone. It's second to none. But, and I'm rambling here, I'll have to settle for Mercalli 2.0 and I have to change operating systems to get that to work! LOL. Video can become much like a sailboat - a huge hole into which you throw money - LOL. I think you are on the right track. I've seen very little differences in video quality between most of the newer bridge cameras and expensive dSLR's. If it does 720p, has decent zoom, reasonable ISO and a stabilized lens or body, it should be quite satisfactory for our purposes. Best regards, LIn

Hi Daniel, Thanks very much - she is a very unique and talented lady. Making a slideshow with her amazing art and talent is always fun - just deciding where to start and stop is the challenge... Best regards, Lin

Hi Mick, Thank you so much - I know Lisah will really appreciate this too. I know what you are going through - I had the same experience two years ago in August - my prayers and hopes are that all will turn out for the best! Best regards, Lin

Hi Gayland, If you need any help figuring out how to load your MP4's into Xara - just let me know and I'll walk you through it step by step. When you have done it once, it will be exceedingly easy to do. Changing background color, etc., is simply a click and drag from the pallet thing and the new Xara 8 lets you embed fonts on your website so there is no longer a need to use "web safe" fonts or convert everything to graphics. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gayland, Thanks - I'll pass your remarks along to Lisah - she will appreciate it! I use Xara Web Designer. First, I output the MP4 directly from PTE at 800x600 resolution, though it's possible with Web Designer to use any resolution so HD 1080 is fine too if your slideshow is in 16:9 aspect ratio. Next you open Web designer - click "File" "New" - choose your web size and Import. Then it takes only seconds to create all the necessary code and Export "Web Site" to a folder. Just copy it all to your choice of folder on your website. The entire process of taking the PTE output, importing to Xara and creating the code to upload the show to your site literally takes less than 60 seconds. You can download a trial of Xara Web Designer (latest version 8) here: http://www.xara.com/us/ Best regards, Lin

Hi Charlie, Thanks! It's fun making slideshows of her and her art. Best regards, Lin