Lin Evans

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

Create or find a circle gif or jpg file - there are thousands available throughout the web. Use it as you would any other object and add a click noise as an mp3 or wav file if you want sound effects. Download and view the numerous tutorials and learn to use the software. Best regards, Lin

Create Custom AVI allows you to set parameters for width and height.... Lin

Unfortunately, I don't believe there is any way to do that... Best regards, Lin

Select the slide you want to be 640x480 - then go to Objects and Animations screen. Click on the "Common" tab then on "Size/Position in Pixels" and enter the value 640x480. Do this for both slides you want to be 640x480. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, There are dozens of free tutorials covering about everything you need right here on the forum in the tutorials and articles section here:.... http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?/forum/8-tutorials-and-articles/ Best regards, Lin

Hi David, I can plainly see them in your capture, but with much more difficulty on the original. I believe this (my inability to see them) is due to a combination of reasons. I'm looking at a lower screen resolution (1024x768) and on a CRT which has less abrupt shifts in gray levels than an LCD which tends to slightly blur gray transitions of very close luminance. The butterfly effect was apparently made from three slides - one grayscale, one of low saturation color and the final well saturated. I think it would be possible to "fix" this by simply either cloning out the artifacts using surrounding clean areas or by using the "blur" tool in Photoshop, then saving at a lower compression level such as 8 or 10. Otherwise another desaturate of the original color and re-save at 10 or 12. Best regards, Lin

Hi Colin, Looked super to me. I couldn't see the artifacts David sees - wonder if it's because of CRT versus LCD/LED display properties? For David: I don't see why desaturating a JPG would "introduce" artifacts. Major artifacts generally happen in jpg files because of excess compression Best regards, Lin

Hi Boogie, The only present way to control sound directly in a video is to mute it or use the navigation bar to manually adjust volume. The work-around (which may or may not be practical depending on the video) is to mute the sound in the video but extract the video sound to an MP3 where you can then insert it and use the full envelope features to adjust it. Of course if the video sound is such that there is precise synchronization between say a "speaker" and the spoken word, then this raises other problems of timings. On the other hand if no such "precise" synchronization is necessary, it's easy enough to either copy or extract the video sound, save it as an MP3 and deal with it that way. Igor has said that in future versions, he will implement more sophisticated audio features for video sound. Best regards, Lin

Here's a couple: one free, one cheap.... http://www.evanolds....ogifsimple.html http://video-to-gif....k-software.com/ Also, once you convert it, you could use various software such as ImageReady (found with Photoshop) to remove backgrounds frame by frame so that you end up essentially with the same type of animation as you might with a chroma key subtraction except you won't have sound. and a couple tutorials about converting video to animated gifs: http://www.makeuseof...ws-movie-maker/ http://www.wikihow.c...a-Gif-Animation Best regards, Lin

Hi Boogie, Until Igor has this sorted out in a future version, there are other viable work-arounds for achieving what you are thinking about. Since PTE already supports animated gif format and since there are a number of software programs which can convert video to animated gif, if the subjects do not require more than 256 colors, it is relatively easy to do short versions via the animated gif approach. Many see animated gif format as a rather simplistic and non-realistic animation. This is probably because of the many web gif which are of more a cartoon-type orientation. However, it is possible with the right backdrop to extract very realistic frames, which when made into sequences via gif animation, are as realistic as other video formats. In addition, PTE already allows the user to vary the gif animation speed so that there is some serious power for using this format. If you want to see an example, download my link below which uses a combination of video, animated gif and still constructs. The lightning is video superimposed over a still image using masking techniques, the rain and water ripple effects on the cube are animated gif - the wolves in motion on one cube face is video - the eagle flying across the screen in the last sequence is an animated gif on top of a video and still frame ...... http://www.learntoma...o/wolfstorm.zip (about 39 meg zipped exe in pc format) Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, Nice DOF isolation with the telephoto - good use of the animated intro and closing too. Lots of character in those faces! Best regards, Lin