Lin Evans

Hey David, You've been having fun I see!! Very nice demo of possibilities. Probably, it would be much easier though to just use Xara 3D and run it as an animated gif, but it certainly does show the flexibility of constructing 3D objects from geometric forms with PTE. Best regards, Lin

It does get a bit confusing, doesn't it? Actually, there are technical reasons why it had to be changed which have to do with video. Igor has explained it in other posts. I think part of the issue of understanding is this: Let's consider first the old way where we have the transition from say slide one to slide two. What if we had selected a four second 3d swap transition for slide one and a four second fade-in, fade-out for slide two. The 3d swap belongs to slide one, but the fade-out, fade-in, is shared between slide one and slide two. So we have the issue of actual full slide display time being settled by subtracting the 3d swap time from the display time for slide one and subtracting the the fade in time from slide two. Had we set the duration for each to 10 seconds, the entire 3d swap, display, fade-out, fade-in, display would occupy 20 seconds. So adding up all the transition times plus actual display times equal the cumulative times set for display for all slides. A benefit of this was the ability to cross-fade by pulling the keyframe from the beginning of slide two into the time frame for the ending of slide one and pushing the keframe for the ending of slide two into the beginning of slide two. This could create some very nice and interesting cross fades which were not one of the "transition" choices. For this reason, many wanted to preserve this way of doing transitions. In answer to your first question, the actual full display time for any given slide in the above scenario is six seconds. The chosen display time minus the chosen transition time. Slide one continues to be seen as a fade-out, when slide two begins to be seen as a fade-in. Slide two then has a full, uninterrupted by transition time, display time of six seconds. The time of partial visibility could be affected then by pulling and pushing the respective keyframes into the adjacent slide time frames. The reason then, that the time included the transition in and not the transition out was because the transition out was shared between the two adjacent slides. With the inclusion of video there became a technical issue with doing this and I'll leave that for Igor to explain, or possibly link to the explanation. Best regards, Lin

Lately, I been helping a very talented lady friend build a website to display her art, etc. In the process, I discovered a bug in my web building software which made the pages look odd with Chrome as a browser, but worked perfectly with Internet Explorer and with Mozilla Firefox. Because the developer has yet to find a correction, I needed a work-around. The problem was that objects such as titles (which are rasterized to insure same image as original font regardless of whether or not the font is resident on the visitor's system) would be out of position on chrome and look very "ragged." Because the pages I needed had no reason to be frequently changed, I elected to instead use JPG's of text and create my own backgrounds with translucency, combined images, fades, decorative text, images with decorative frames, etc. Doing all this in Photoshop is "possible," but extremely awkward, even for a seasoned and skilled Photoshop technician. But PTE is an absolute jewel for some of these operations. For example, it's possible to bring multiple images into PTE on separate layers including a colored background, etc., and in "seconds" visually create what takes perhaps an hour to accomplish with layers in Photoshop. By quickly manipulating opacity, using masks, etc., it's possible to get amazing creations in seconds. Just be sure your screen resolution is high enough to support the quality you want, then simply turn off navigation and mouse, set the display time for about 30 seconds, hit preview and use your favorite screen capture to capture and save the multi-layer creation as a jpg, etc. Want to add a png frame to a picture? What if the frame doesn't quite "fit?" Of course in Photoshop you can use the "transform" feature and with enough time and patience, you can surround your picture and manipulate the frame to "fit." However, this is not a simple task and even if you are "very good" with Photoshop, it will take you some time to accomplish. In PTE, it's as simple as holding down the shift key and "dragging" the sides of your png frame to fit. It literally takes seconds to do. Do you want multiple images masked and appearing at different places in your composition? In Photoshop, this takes a very long time and sometimes it's simply not worth the effort! In PTE, it takes a few seconds to get incredibly good results. Bottom line? PTE is versatile in many, many ways and can be used for tasks one doesn't normally thing about with a presentation slideshow software product. Lin

Hi Bob, The only control other than "mute" which you have over volume on a video right now is via the Navigation Bar. On there you have a speaker icon which allows you full volume control, but you don't have audio controls with the envelope as on regular audio backgrounds, comments, etc. Hopefully, in a future version Igor will have full dynamic and keyframe sound control in video just like in still image audio. Best regards, Lin

Hi Coolrock, You'll have to check the dates on these posts. Sadly, both Jean-Pierre and Ron have passed away since these were made a number of years ago.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, Good suggestion. By the way, you don't need to use a png file to make a "hotspot." you can just use a "frame" and set the size and position by drag and the opacity is automatically zero. Best regards, Lin

Hey Ken, This little jewel of a program makes it "simple" truly!! Best regards, Lin

Hi Folks, Lately, I've had the pleasure of reviewing a wonderful program which creates web albums. It's called S10 WebAlbum and can be downloaded at: Link to S10 WebAlbum This is a really nice package which does much more than "just' create a web album. It includes tools to rotate, tilt, adjust brightness, remove red eye and even lets you link to your favorite program such as Photoshop to further manipulate your image if you deem it necessary. The program has multiple "themes" and is very versatile in ways to present your images. There are places to write descriptions, comments, etc., and you can change fonts, colors, and present your photos in user selected sizes. I've used a large number of "web album generating" tools folks, but this one is special in my opinion. It's VERY easy to use, very intuitive and the developer is quite helpful if there are issues specific to your use. This program was formerly sold, but is now offered as freeware though I suggest that anyone who uses it and finds it useful donate a small amount to help keep development current. The developer also has some really nice and low priced other utilities which you can see when you visit his page. As some of you may know, I'm helping a local lady with setting up her website to display her art. I'm building a website for her and am using the S10 WebAlbum to display some of her art. Here's a link to see one of many "themes" possible with this fine package. It gets my highest recommendation!! Link to my Sample! Lin

You did a fine job of explaining!! Not a problem. Your example is a beautiful way to show how the copyright logo can be used as a border! Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, The suggestion to use the copyright logo works fine as long as each image is the same size. You simply create the PNG file the size you wish as a border with the transparent center, then display it at 100% (look in Customize Logo) and it will lie on top of your photos as a very nice border. However, if you have some vertical and some horizontal photos in the same show, or if you have various sizes, the only way you will be able to do this is to add the PNG border file on a layer in Objects and Animations and adjust it for each photo. You only need one size border to do it individually for each photo. You simply click-drag the border until it's centered on the photo (or set the position manually to zero and zero) then click on one end and hold down the shift key while dragging that side into position. Do this on each side as necessary. The shift key allows you to "distort" the horizontal or vertical XY axis visually. There is no other way to automatically use a png file as a border that I'm aware of other than the two ways described above. Best regards, Lin

Hi, You will need to convert your iTunes to mp3 - here's a free converter: It wants to install a tool bar, but I think you can disable that..... http://translateye.c...leconverter.php Read about it here: http://itunesm4ptomp3.wordpress.com/ There are numerous converters which are low cost but not "free." You could also do a web search for other freeware to do this. Lin

Hi Ron, Just open PTE, find a video, place your mouse cursor over it and right click. You will then see the option.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, Here's my take on it. Essentially, when people look at a high pixel count image at 1:1 the 14 megapixel files don't look nearly as clean as 8 megapixel files., etc. But this is just as true for 24 megapixel Nikon D3x images versus 6 megapixel Nikon D40 images. The "truth," however, is that of course the D3X images in print far surpass the D40 images. The same is true for the higher megapixel count bridge cameras versus the older models. We have to keep in mind that what we are actually looking at when we look at 1:1 crops from these high megapixel cameras is what we would see in a huge print of perhaps 60 inches on the long axis. Naturally, they show more of the faults simply because they are so big. When we downsample the 14 megapixel images to the same pixel dimensions as the 8 megapixel images, they look almost identical. But when we print, we take advantage of the full optical resolution and pixel count, so the prints from my SX30IS look fantastic. At 8x12 or even larger, I can' t tell the difference between prints from the SX30IS and my D7000 Nikon dSLR. I really don't think it's a big issue at all. What the major difference will be, of course, is that your dSLR will far outperform the little sensor for dynamic range and high ISO. So if you are shooting in marginal light or need fast focus, etc., the differences will be in your face. On the other hand, if you are shooting every day vacation type shots, I don't think you will see any appreciable difference in prints. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, I can lend a little information on the Canon SX30IS. Image quality is good but with some chromatic aberrations which must be dealt with in post processing for optimal quality. Super excellent movie mode and excellent zoom range. In all, a decent bridge camera, but there will be some issues which you didn't have to deal with on your Nikon because the CA issue is done by firmware so that your jpg's are always clean. You will find that on almost all bridge cameras, you won't get the instant autofocus that you are used to. Non dSLR's of this type use contrast detection rather than phase detection for autofocusing. This means a much slower response because the camera performs an iterative process. It's much more difficult to use the bridge cameras in harsh light. There is much less dynamic range so exposure is much more critical. You won't be able to correct for blown highlights and it will be more difficult to pull detail from the shadows. Of the bridge cameras I've owned (many - around 40) the SX30IS ranks right up there in terms of image quality and overall performance. There is no RAW mode with this camera so what you get are jpgs. The movie mode is the easiest to access among all bridge cameras. You simply move your thumb over a half inch and press the movie button. If you want to take a still during the movie capture, you just press the shutter and the camera will capture the still image and return to the movie mode automatically. It's VERY versatile this way. If you are super critical of image quality, I'm afraid none of the bridge cameras will meet your expectations. On the other hand, if you don't mind spending a little time in Photoshop or your favorite image manipulation software, the results can be easily made to be very good. Best regards, Lin

No need to be concerned. Downloading the new version does "not" overwrite the old one, and besides, there is no compatibility issue. Also I would suggest downloading and installing the latest beta because there are some dynamite new features such as the ability to add video! If the "icon" after you download and install the latest version calls the new version, it's very easy to simply go to explore and create an icon for the older version and add it to the desktop. Version 7 beta will automatically create another icon so there will automatically be one for version 6x and one for 7x. Lin

Hi Ray, I can't tell you which setting might be best from Elements, but don't use the PTE Codec because it's only designed as a temporary way of holding information for creating AVI files with PTE, it's not a "standard" codec but quite specific to PTE's internal AVI creation. Probably, you would want to use the best possible settings in Elements and export (depending on where you live) either a 30 frame per second (NTSC) or 25 frame per second (PAL) mp4, if that's a choice. The PTE converter will convert to an amenable mp4 which has the best quality/performance settings for PTE. I've noticed no apparent loss of quality when I convert an HD 1080p MOV output from my Nikon D7000 via the PTE converter. The mp4 which PTE creates looks exactly the same, but plays perfectly smoothly while the huge MOV plays jerky if I import it directly. If I set my camera for a 640x480 MOV output, that one plays smoothly in PTE without conversion. Bottom line - try it several ways with a short video and choose the one which gives the best performance with the least file size overhead. Best regards, Lin

Hi Daphne, That thread is two years old, so I'm pretty certain those who were looking have it sorted out pretty much by now - LOL. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, It doesn't convert "on the fly." That may eventually be something to be considered, but "only," in my opinion, if as an option which could be chosen by the user by a check mark, etc. The reason it should be optional is that conversion takes considerable time and it certainly is not always necessary. One of the BIG advantages of PTE over the competition right now is its ability to virtually instantly add video and see the result in an instant preview. If the conversion were done on the fly and the video was of any significant length and of high resolution, the time to review would be like that of the competition which is a real "pain" to say the least. Right now one converts, and the conversion, when used, is then instantly available. The other issue is that when converting something like Flash FLV, the conversion is going to be significantly larger in file size. Sometimes having a little Flash FLV video used for animated effects can be a wonderful addition to your slideshow. On the other hand, the same "tiny" file size when converted might add forty or fifty megabytes, with no significant improvement in performance. The competition can't use Flash FLV and conversions "must" be made and are done "on the fly." This is very annoying. Using PTE is sooooo much faster and easier because it "doesn't" convert on the fly..... Best regards, Lin

Hi Edward, Let me qualify what Eric said a bit; perhaps the wrong choice of word. The beta versions are not "trial versions," they are full featured versions still under development. The beta versions are available to all owners of PTE and since beta 12 (now on beta 14) they are very stable. Most of us make our regular shows using the latest PTE beta which is completely usable. Yes, you can add videos, use videos as backgrounds while still slides are being displayed sequentially, use still slides as backgrounds while videos are being run, etc. PTE has the most versatile video capability of anything out there right now in the way of presentation slideshow software. You can treat videos just like any other object. You have full 3D transform ability, can have multiple videos running simultaneously, you can even run your video on the faces of rotating geometric objects such as cubes, pyramids, etc. Remember, when you add a high resolution video that file sizes will be quite large. Three minutes of HD video is the equivalent of 5,400 still images (30 frames per second times 180 seconds) so it's wise to use HD video sparingly especially if you want to send your shows to friends, etc. You won't be disappointed with PTE's handling of videos. They load virtually instantly and you can preview your work as you proceed. Best regards, Lin

The JPG EXIF template for JPG EXIF Description and JPG EXIF Comments are still dead. Use Irfanview and insert something into each IPTC category and into the jpg comments category and test all templates with PTE text. These two categories return nothing using the PTE template. We either need to find out how an editor such as Irfanview reads these and fix this in PTE or remove the categories because it's been inoperative in PTE for several years now.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, That makes perfect sense! Enjoy your vacation and take lots of pictures for us so we can enjoy it when you return !! Best regards, Lin

Hi Gérard, Thanks! That explains why I can't find it. I think it would be much better if the access were available from within PTE rather than as a side program. I can't access it that way because of a limitation with Windows XP. I have too many programs on my system and I can't see PicturesToExe Beta, etc., so I'll have to chase it down via Explore. I think Igor should put a link button within the PTE main code to access this via right mouse click on video's found in the tree or on thumbnails rather than as a separate free standing program. Thanks again, Lin

My "Word" editor has failed and I'm wondering where we find access to the new "video converter?" Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, Igor has not abandoned work on a native Mac version - it is just taking much longer than originally anticipated. Once all the video, audio and other new features are implemented successfully, work will continue on the Mac version. As Stu points out in his link, it may be a year or two until it's finished, but it has "not" been abandoned... In order to proceed smoothly, it's necessary to code in a language which can be used by "both" Windows and Apple OS. This will take time because some of the common languages such as C++ are incredibly kludge in terms of overhead, etc. They tend to greatly slow down things, and I'm certain that the developers of PTE want something "much" more concise and with much tighter code. A great example of how this type of overhead can ruin a great program is dBase II. dBase II was written primarily in assembler with some C. It was incredibly fast and powerful and could be run even on 8 bit systems such as CPM. Then when the primary developer left and the bean counters took over, they used C to write dBase III. It was still usable, but much slower and with heavy overhead. The "progressed" to C++ for dBase IV and essentially "killed" the program. It was slow, ponderous and essentially worthless for getting things done in a quick and efficient fashion. We sure don't want this kind of thing to happen to PTE!! Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, Have a wonderful and well-deserved vacation Igor - take lots of pictures!! Best regards, Lin