Lin Evans

Hi David, It will be 'if" people insist on using high resolution video for more than a few seconds. On the other hand, if the video's are downsized to VGA or smaller, it will be possible to have longer clips. I suppose experimentation will be the best way to proceed. It would be possible to have a single clip of say 10 megabyte size (about 13 seconds, for 720P) used once or repeatedly as a background which would still leave about 10 meg for stills. But the problems are going to rapidly multiply if users want to show 30 seconds of 1080P or 1080I and say 100 high resolution photos. Of course unless one is doing deep zooms, there is absolutely zero reasons for an original jpg to be larger than two megapixels (1080x1920 = 2,073,600 pixels). Anything larger than this for a non deep zoom in is wasting resources. We can also conserve resources by trimming away all excess transparency possible around PNG objects. A couple years ago I created two virtually identical puzzle demos - one using full sized PNG transparencies for convenience in object placement, and another with all the excess transparency removed. Of course the one with transparency minimized played on almost all systems smoothly, while the one with tull transparency rectangle to facilitate image placement was difficult for many who had less than optimal video cards. JPD was a master at crafting shows with minimal resource use. We will all have to become like him if we want to have our cake and eat it too. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, At first, I suspect there will be a deluge of video enhanced PTE shows; at least until the novelty wears off. This will stress the bandwidth of Beechbrook and perhaps require users to "chip-in" and help pay for the additional storage and costs. For MediaFire, it may put some users "over the top" so that they have to pay rather than use the free upload features. It will also tax the patience of those who want to download new slideshows, because time constraints will play a major role in the decision to download or not. That's a good reason, I believe, for trying to use this new feature judiciously,.We need to use some restraint in our zeal to quickly use this neat new capability. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, Video is intensive as far as size is concerned, especially if using HD video. As you know, our executable code creates the majority of the images for intermediate steps in animation on the fly, so exe file sizes are only the combination of the original image plus the code to instruct the computer in creating the myriad intermediate steps and effects for the displays and the associated sound files, etc. Video must contain a "hard copy" of each and every "step" so that for a 30 frame per second video we are looking at storing at least 1800 separate images for each minute of video clip. How "large" these files get then depends primarily on the size in pixel dimensions of each frame times the number of frames in the entire clip. So if we only plan to run a relatively tiny frame size video, we can conserve space by not "resizing" the clip in PTE but rather using a video editor to greatly downsize the video clip dimensions. the difference in overall memory storage will essentially be whatever the difference is between the memory requirements for a single frame times the number of overall frames. Of course compression algorithms (codecs) also play into this scenario. Uncompressed video can be huge, while some amazing codecs can greatly help with overall files size control. The other thing (good news) which we can happily attribute to the great development team at Wnsoft, is that if we use the same video clip multiple times, there is no penalty.for an executable slideshow beyond the "initial" hit in terms of overhead. For example, if one were to choose a 720p HD clip of say 12 seconds in length, it might equal about 10 megabytes in overhead. If one were to use that clip as a background for 100 images, the total size increase from using it for the background for a single image is insignificant. It will still only add about 10 megabytes to overall storage. Just as using the same PNG or jpg over and again adds nothing extra for additional use. So we need to plan our shows using video very carefully. That's why I believe a discussion about what users might want to do with video is important. Best regards, Lin

Soon, Wnsoft will have beta 1 of PTE version 7 available, and we have all been anxiously awaiting this. One of the main new features will be the "drop-in video clip" option. But, what will we do and how will we implement this feature in our slideshows? How about some discussion about ways to use this new feature? Will we simply incorporate a few video clips in our shows? Will we use a video clip as a background to display still slides on? Let's have some discussions about novel ways to incorporate this new and exciting feature! Best regards, Lin

Hi Dom, Dang, I can't see it - I just get this:

Amazing, This will let us do something else the competition can't do - we can use a video as a background for an entire slideshow without increasing the storage "penalty" beyond the first video clip size!! That's significant!!! Lin

Ahhh, the possibilities are endless ...... Can't wait!! Lin

Hey Dom, Beautiful images and beautifully presented, but - I would slow it down and give the viewer about 10 seconds rather than four seconds to enjoy each image once the animation has finished. These are too nice of image to each be gone so quickly! Best regards, Lin

Hi Roger, Very cute! Love the sound effects and the voice-over's were spot on! The use of the typewriter intro was perfect. Now I'm wonder just how much the ant received for his/her payout? LOL. Thanks for a jolly good show! Lin

Hi Jan, Barry has a good idea, but some discussion below to give you some background..... What you are doing requires, primarily, the power of the video card. PTE, unlike most presentation slideshow products, uses hardware rendering. You may be already familiar with this, but if not, a short explanation. Though the power of the CPU is important, primarily the memory and GPU in the video card are used to render complex animations smoothly and quickly. As you know, when an executable file is played by a system, the computer creates the stream of images on the fly. So even if you have an extremely good video card and create a very smooth slideshow with complex animations, if the executable file is played back on a system with a less than optimal video card, the motion can be jerky and stuttering. Video creation is limited to either 24 or 30 frames per second in most cases, while the executable code frequently creates over 60 frames per second. Therefore, certain types of motion in an MP4 h.264 simply won't be as smooth as with an executable file. This is especially noticeable on the leading edge of objects in motion. In the movie industry, there are some really complex algorithms used for "smoothing" these otherwise "jerky" motions by using various blur techniques. Unfortunately that technology isn't yet available to presentation slideshow developers. Because of the need to adhere to Direct X protocol, the absolute best sequence rate in current presentation slideshow software is around 150 ms per frame. On the much older versions of PTE before Direct X issues, it was quite possible to sequence at speeds of up to 10 ms per image which made it possible to animate timelapse and even exceed the results with pro video. Unfortunately, with the new versions, this is no longer possible. It is possible, however, to do opacity blending between frames to mask some of the jerk between frames, but it's a "lot" of work and with the forthcoming video clip drop-in, I doubt it would be worth the time it would take for you to do this except on very short clips. Even so, the problem remains that not all systems you play your show back on will be able to run it smoothly. As for the smoothness of MP4 h.264, you will find that the same show played on a computer with rather "jerky" motion, may very well play quite perfectly when played on a wide screen LED or LCD television via either the USB port or with one of the newer media players. It seems that televisions are optimized to play these mp4's while the software available to play them on computers is less than optimal in most cases. I've made several shows which use opacity blending to give smooth motion to objects, but I have kept the objects small so as not to overtax the system. For example, I'll link you to one I did a year or so ago which uses a variety of techniques. It was a "demo" of the abilities of PTE and the particular part where opacity blending was done was a sample of the earth rotating on its axis while rotating around the sun. Take a look at it and then I can answer question you may have. There were over 600 separate views of the Earth in rotation used for the short sequence. These consisted of small PNG transparencies with opacity blending between frames. Another possibility you may want to explore until we get the first beta 7 with video clip drop in (it's due very shortly) is to explore using animated GIF's. It's very possible to convert video to animated GIF's and PTE runs them very well. I'll also link you to a couple shows where I've used animated GIF's in lieu of video. http://www.learntoma...emoshowfull.zip (about 95 meg download) Windows Executable zipped http://www.learntoma...showfullmac.zip (about 97 meg download) MacIntosh native executable zipped Now for the animated GIF's: http://www.picturest...showtopic=12809 (gif animations using cube) http://www.picturest...showtopic=12935 (flying Bald Eagle using animated gif) Best regards, Lin

Thanks Daniel, It's good that such a large pano can still work with older video cards. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mary, Thanks! It's actually working better on older, less powerful cards than I expected. I guess we can learn from this that adding animated objects while the pan is still slowing can tax the system a bit. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bert, Thanks for the feedback. That's caused by the "smooth" start and finish and the inability of anti-shimmer to completely stop sharp small objects from "glitter" or "ripple" - unfortunately, there isn't too much that can be done without making the image very blurry without overlaying a single frame over the pano and treating it independently in the affected areas. Best regards, Lin

Thanks Ralph, I suspected that using "smooth" might have that effect on some older cards. I can't say for certain, but I assume that to get the "smooth" version, PTE uses a combination of increased frame rate along with actual pan rate curves. If this is so, it could cause some older cards to "stutter" a bit on startup. If not, I'm not sure what might cause it. That far along it "could be" just that the sharpness in that area of the image might overcome the anti-shimmer which I have turned on. On a sharp LCD type monitor, it might just be that or a combination of frame rate and sharpness. These things are not always easy to ferret out. Best regards, Lin

You're right - that's a "memory lapse" - blame it on old age - LOL Lin

Just some of my "reasoning" for my choice of music and for the inclusion of the eagle and Red-tailed hawk vocalization for this demo: First, I wanted music which began slowly to match the slow pan, smooth start of the very wide video. I also wanted the music to increase in tempo as the speed of the pan accelerated. This selection was perfect in that respect. Secondly, I wanted music which accelerated to an upbeat tempo as the slide pan progressed. The selection also fit that criterion. I needed a song which mirrored the length of the pan (over "7 minutes) without a break or repetition. "Check". Finally, I needed an audio frequency matching the scream of the Red-tailed hawk vocalization so that the scream could be frequency matched by the audio background music at the end of the scream. "Check." When sound mixing for a video "production" is done right, the audience shouldn't be acutely aware of these factors, they should subtly incorporated so as to enhance the experience but not be obvious. Of course this was only a demo (not a "video production") to determine the suitability of panning a wide panoramic with lower spec video cards, but I do pay attention to these variables. If one watches with these factors in mind, I believe the reasoning may become more obvious. By the way, for you naturalists out there: Red-tailed hawk vocalizations are commonly used by major movie producers with eagles rather than Eagle vocalization. This is done instead of using the rather "wimpy" Bald Eagle vocalization. Hey, nature designed them that way - LOL. Bald and Golden Eagles just don't have an exciting scream, but the Red-tailed Hawk's vocalization will bring up the hackles on the back of your neck. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, Yes, that one will fill the screen on a 4:3 and leave a little black on a 5:4. Too many different ratios available to cover them all unfortunately. I have cameras which shoot 5:4, 4:3 and 16:9 but 35mm is actually 4:3 so most of my dSLR's shoot that aspect ratio. It would be great if the display manufacturers and the camera manufacturers were to standardize on "something" LOL. As for the technicals - it's just a stitched panorama which is scrolled slowly. The animated eagle is an animated gif created from a video of a bald eagle flying. I'm working on a collection of animal and bird videos to convert to animated gifs. It's a long and tedious job to remove the backgrounds from each frame unless the bird or animal just "happens" to blue screen itself as birds sometimes do when flying against a clear blue sky. Otherwise it's a frame by frame background removal then a combining of frames to get the animated gif. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bill, Thanks for checking it out. It was photographed from about 200 feet south of my front door. The area of mountains is commonly referred to around here as the Front Range. Rocky Mountain National Park lies toward the center and right as you see the mountain range on the scroll. It's about 30 miles nw of my viewpoint. The right side of mountain range is north and the left side is south and you are looking west. Best regards, Lin

Hi Hubert, Actually, the colors are correct, that's pretty much how it looks at sunrise. The captures were made at daybreak and there was only a tiny amount of light and deep shadows. Only the snow on the higher elevations allow enough reflected light to see much in the way of detail. As the pano advances, the area to the far left where the ranch house appears is four to five miles from my lens. The tall peaks are all over 14,000 feet and they get sunlight first. As time passes (it take about 30 minutes) the sunlight gradually illuminates the lower elevations. Those tall peaks are 30-50 miles distant while the foreground especially on the left side is about 4 miles distant from the lens. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, LOL - the Red Tailed Hawk vocalization will wake up the Devil himself. Yep, Hotel California - actually, I have thousands of other music selections I "could" have used, but thei one set the mood and had the proper length for the amount of scroll, etc. Thanks for the link though. Were you playing the wide screen version on your 5:4 monitor? If so, there will be black lines. Trying to decide who needs which is always a challenge. That's why I only made one version to start. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ken, That's good news. I made an MP4 and played it on my Samsung and it came pretty good too, but I haven't tried svhs - not sure I have that output on my little laptop. That's quite a "scream" isn't it? LOL, I did the same thing that most movie makers do, I substituted the cry of a Red Tailed Hawk instead of a Bald Eagle. Actually, Bald Eagles have a wimpy vocalization - not exciting at all. For years the movie people have used Red Tailed Hawk's vocalizations and most people think that's what eagles sound like, but they really are not impressive at all. I'm not sure on the buildings - I'll have to see if I can drive over there and look. On a closeup of the pano in Photoshop, I noticed a for sale sign on the ranch. I don't think it shows in the pano but got cut off at the bottom. The images were made at 600mm so it's a good distance away to that point - maybe four miles or more. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, It's a multi-frame stitch of individual photos taken with on of my dSLR's. I live on the east side of the Rockies and in the winter the sunrise is from the south east so that casts shadows to the right of the peaks in the early morning. It's good to hear that it runs smoothly for you on the 5770 at 1920x1080. Unfortunately the only way I can test it at that resolution is on my 40' Samsung LED television. I made an MP4 and it ran fine on the Samsung with no apparent issues. I've got to get another monitor soon which works at 1920 x 1080. I sold my 2560 x1600 HP 30" HP monitor when I moved and need to find another so I can test higher resolution shows again. In the past I've made 360 degree panos in PTE but systems with less than optimal video cards had problem so I stopped using large panos for a while. A friend in Maine wanted to see the view from my street so I thought this might be a good time to test a rather wide pano. I thought by keeping the file size down a bit I might be able to get it to work with older video cards, but I wasn't sure since all of my systems these days are upgraded. Best regards, Lin

Thanks Gayland, It's good to know that it can play smoothly on intergated graphics - at least on the one on a newer system with Windows 7. Best regards, Lin

Thanks Xaver, I would expect a 9600GT to do well with it. Sky posterization may be from jpg compression. I had to make the file pretty compressed to avoid lengthy downoads. The original file is over 100 megabytes. The issue with aspect ratios is always going to be user specific. Those with wide screen displays will want 16:9 or 16:10 and those with 5:4, etc., will want the opposite. I made a couple wide screen demos for Mac and PC and posted links on original post. I used less compression so perhaps the posterization you see will be gone. I can't see it on either of my high res monitors so can only guess about it. Music is always going to be controversial. I'm not certain if the word "appropriate" even applies here. Its simply a demo to determine the feasibility of scrolling a very wide pano with less than optimal video cards so it really doesn't matter about the background music. Actually, I like the one I used, but I'm always open to suggestions. What would you suggest? Best regards, Lin

Hi Ken, Thanks for the feedback! I was concerned about lower video card memory so made the pano as small as possible to still get decent appearance. I'm not sure why the zoom was more subtle. It's always a mystery... You might want to download again - I added the "little birdie" - LOL Best regards, Lin