Lin Evans

Hi Nicky, Though you can't directly drop in video clips yet into PTE, you "can" use animated gifs and if your video clips are not too long, there are a number of products which allow conversion of video to animated gif. If you can give me some details of the length of the video you need to use, perhaps I can help you determine whether this method might be feasible for your application. The quality of a conversion is quite good, but it's not suitable for really long video. GIF's only allow 256 colors, so there won't be the same "richness" of original video, but all video content doesn't necessarily need more than 256 colors depending on the content. Best regards, Lin

Hey David, It's been a while! I threw him a fish - LOL. Actually, since a few versions ago, PTE has had the ability to incorporate animated GIF's. There are all types of animated GIF files out there from pretty rudimentary to quite sophisticated. Some of the software allows taking a video and converting it to an animated GIF. I suspect that the process involves first breaking it into separate jpg files, then removing the background and substituting transparency. This one was quite probably done that way since it is extremely fluid and anatomically accurate for flight right down to the shadow of the wings on the eagle's face each time it flaps the wing. The position of the sun on the eagle happened to match the position of the sun in the photo which adds to the realism, I think. So in the future, when we need to get some realistic animation, we "can" drop in a video (coming in version 7), but also with software which allows conversion of video to animated GIF's, we can save lots of storage and system overhead and convert applicable video footage to animated GIF format. Of course we only have 256 colors with GIF (at least as far as I know), but for small objects or objects which are darker in nature, that's often enough. I think that the realism in our shows will be limited only by one's imagination and creativity in the years to come. Some of the smaller cameras coming out today such as the soon to be released Sony HX100V can, according to advertising, actually shoot in 3D. One of our French PTE users already creates PTE shows in 3D but they are done with twin cameras with synchronized shutters. This is not something that "everyone" is technically capable of doing, but this new Sony will make it easy and we should begin to see some interesting slideshows. A couple years ago I created some 3D shows with animation. Now when and if consumer "video" cameras are able to use the Sony technology, our PTE shows in the future might be something else indeed from a realism standpoint. Best regards, Lin

Das ist zu komisch! Lin

Nice job Colin! Your interest in flying is well represented and you've mastered the PNG object extraction process nicely! I enjoyed this. Now that PTE has the ability to use animated GIF's you may want to explore creating some of your own. There are free and inexpensive software packages to help with that. If done judiciously, they can add to some of the effects I think. Best regards, and keep up the good work! Lin

Hey Ken, That "crow" got a "white head" so he be embarrassed with too much "air time." He's looking for a fishy dinner, I think! Lin

http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/debbie/dbirthday.zip (Windows PC - About 9 meg) http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/debbie/dbirthdaymac.zip (MacIntosh native executable - about 9 meg) Lin

Hi Gary, It's essentially just a relatively simple math thing. When you "spread" the time evenly among all the slides, you include the one slide you want to have 16 seconds. What happens, as I sure you already know, is that the number of slides are divided by the number of seconds in your music then that quotient is represented as the number of seconds per slide. Now you want to increase the length of time for a single slide so the additional time over whatever the individual slide times are, must be subtracted equally from all the other slides. Let's use an easy example so we don't need a calculator. Let's say you have a song which lasts exactly 120 seconds or two minutes. Let's say you have 10 slides. So each slide gets 12 seconds. Now you want to have one of these slides play for 22 seconds. This then leaves 10 seconds which must be subtracted from the other nine slides. The other none slides total (12x9 = 108 seconds) 108 seconds. Subtract 10 seconds from 108 and you have 98 seconds to be divided among 9 slides. (98/9 = 10.88 seconds). So if you set the timing for all slides to 10.88 seconds, then set the one slide to 22 seconds, the music and image display should end simultaneously. In order to program this, relatively simple math would be used and the program would have to total all the "non - standard" times represented by individual custom settings and follow the logic above to determine what the settings should be for the remaining slides. It doesn't "appear" to be an insoluble issue, but I'm not privy to the inner working of PTE so perhaps there are variable I'm not aware of which make it more difficult. Best regards, Lin

Hi Fred, Sorry, I'm not clear on exactly what it is you want to do? If you are using Photoshop, you can create a transparency around your subject in several ways. Perhaps the easiest is to first open the file you wish to have as the subject then do "Select All" then "Edit" then "Copy." This places your image on the clipboard. Now close this image. Next click on "File" "New" and set the background attribute to "Transparent" and the file size in pixels to correspond to the image you have placed on the clipboard in the previous step. Next click "O.K." Next do "Edit" "Paste" and you will see your original image appear. It will, however, be on a "layer" above the transparency. Next use the "Eraser" tool to erase all of the image you "don't" want to be on your final transparent PNG file. Once you have carefully erased all which you don't want to appear, save this as a PNG file. This, then will appear in PTE as a "floating" object with the parts not desired as transparent. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, Absolutely - this was the most enjoyable slide show I've seen.... Sorry the anti-shimmer didn't help - sometimes when images are very sharp, it doesn't seem to help too much. It's not a huge thing - in fact if the show is made into an MP4 the shimmer may not be all that noticeable. I doubt that whether your images have been resized or not has any real bearing on the effect of mip-mapping or anti-shimmer. Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with the operation of PhotoStudio, but in Photoshop the "selection" tools have a feature which you can use called "feathering." Feathering softens the edges of any selection and makes the transition much less abrupt. If you are able to use the built-in masks in PTE, they have feathering adjustable by menu. However, only rectangular or circular type masks are available in PTE so when you are making custom masks, you definitely need a tool which allows feathering. Probably it's not worth reloading the large file just for the cursor, but for your own and future use it would probably be worthwhile to turn it off and recompile the exe fiile. Best regards, and congratulations on a wonderful presentation! Lin Hi Lin, I must say that such "strong" comments, coming from you, make me feel even happier! No doubt! Although... I think that they are too much strong! Is it true? Is this the one and most enjoyable? Not possible... Now, speaking seriously, that "shimmering" is really a problem! I can let you know that I did used the "anti-shimmer" all over the project in almost every moving image. Result? Zero! I have the notion that such anti-shimmer reduces picture sharpness (and when I apply I can note such loss), and this should be a good reason to reduce the shimmer, but result is not noticed. I think I read somewhere that it is only effective when applied on original size images, not on resized images (which is my case). This may be the explanation for such useless option. In fact, not considering the "old" photos, all my original photos were 4:3 (2592x1944) and I made my PTE project at 1920x1080 (16:9). Of course, I had to reframe the images and so I always had to zoom/resize. It's really a problem, but I can not imagine how it can be overpassed. By the way: do you know any method to "smooth" razor-cut edges? You certainly noticed in several "double or triple images" (train passing by the windows, electricity post passing by, etc.) where I used "home-made" masks, that such masks' edges are really razor-cut, which is not natural and not nice. It should exist a "method" to create a "black and white dégradé" all around the mask's edges in order to avoid such razor-cut aspect. I made several tests with my ArcSoft PhotoStudio 5.5.0 (not bad at all...) but I couldn't get any result at all. Thanks very much for your lines, and my best regards, Jose PS: Sorry for that mouse cursor, it's really my fault, I forgot that. May be I will replace the exe file at MediaFire, I don't know if it is worthwhile.

http://www.burningman.com/whatisburningman/ Lin

Hi Peter, Actually, the message was quite effective, but only for those with a prior understanding of the "Burning Man" phenomenon. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bernardo, I wish I had an easy answer for you - I'm not certain why the Youtube output was of such low pixel size. Video Builder can output "very" high quality to Youtube. I used to have some 1600x1200 samples on Youtube which were output directly from PTE to Youtube. Since your production is built in 5:4 aspect ratio, using the HD 1080p output would crop off the top and bottom so you really don't want to chose either of those. Instead, choose the Custom and set the resolution to a higher figure with 5:4 aspect ratio. This could be variously 800x600, 1024x768 or 1600x1200. Realize that if you choose 1600x1200, the "probability" is that your viewers will have to pause the output at Youtube immediately after it starts then wait until the buffering gives a decent head start before proceeding. Youtube will actually "convert" the MP4 h.264 to a proprietary high quality Flash show, but it will be virtually indistinguishable from the original at 1600x1200. If you choose 1024x768 it doesn't get converted to HD by Youtube for what ever reason, so to get true HD you either must redo the show cropped to the 1080 or 720 formats or use 1200x1600. It's entirely possible that the demo version of Video Builder doesn't output the full resolution. I can't check that because I have purchased multiple copies for my own computers and they are all full deluxe version. Again, if you want to test it before you buy Video Builder, just link me to your zipped PTE file and I'll output a 1600x1200 which you can then download and subsequently upload to Youtube to try it for yourself. p.s. Here's a link to one of my shows on Youtube which I think can be run in HD.... http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=grPvnD2nubM&vq=hd1080 Best regards, Lin

Hi B, (is there a better name - maybe first name?) I couldn't get the downloaded video file to play for me at all, so I can't comment on it. I was able to see the exe just fine. The "best" quality video is going to be an MP4 h.264 created with PTE. It will be MUCH larger in size that the exe file. If you will zip up your PTE files using the internal zip feature (file - create backup in zip) and post that and a link for me, I'll create an MP4 of it and link you to it. You need Video Builder to do this. The Deluxe version of PTE includes Video Builder and is well worth the additional small cost. AVI files will "never" be equal in quality and there is always the issue of people trying to play them without the proper codec. MP4 h.264 is a far superior distribution mode. With no more animation than you have in your intro exe, the MP4 will be virtually identical to the exe. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mick, The PTE codec is only intended for temporary use while exporting data to a DVD so is relatively uncompressed and not suitable for a stand-alone AVI file. He "probably" will be able to use the MP4 file without incident, but in the event you need to make an AVI if you will report on the Codecs available on your system when you press the "down" arrow to choose a different codec, perhaps we can help you decide which is best for your intended purpose. The exact codecs available on your system will depend on other software you may have installed, or on codec "Packs" you might have installed. I would assume that you haven't installed any codec packs since you related that you were not "up on video codecs." Usually you will find one or more Microsoft video codecs available and they are usually a safe choice. Whether or not he will be able to "play" the AVI will depend on whether or not his system has the ability to decode (has the codec installed) or which "player" he may be using which may have the codec built in. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jean, I believe that the new unsharp mask feature is an "option" which can be selected or not. If I'm wrong - perhaps Igor can correct me. If it is optional by ticking a box, etc., then we could choose not to use it and everything would remain as it is now. Then if circumstances deem it necessary we have the choice of applying it universally, but could "tone it down" if desired. What isn't clear is whether reducing the amount, etc., would be applicable to individual slides or would apply necessarily to "all" slides? Best regards, Lin

Hi Mick, Yes, you can. First, click on the "create custom AVI Video File" button. Then from the changed screen click on the Video Codec tab and choose one of the available codecs other than the PTE default. Next choose the width, height and frames per second (FPS) desired. If you have Video Builder you may just want to send him an mp4 rather than an AVI? Best regards, Lin

Hi Alex, Go back and set everything to "linear." Then change to "smooth" on one of the keyframes, then go to "setting up" and click each of the "seperate here" points. This will then set all keyframes to smooth for that object or slide. If you don't do this, the results may be uncertain. It's best to program everything in "linear" then after all the timings, etc., are correct, go set up "smooth" and use the "setting up," etc. Do this for all of the animation possibilities to be on the safe side. Even if you don't have any "rotate" or "pan" if you "accidentally" move an image during the size, for example, the "pan" will be affected. If you accidentally rotate only a degree, the "rotate" will be affected. There is no "penalty" for setting smooth on all three even if they are not used in your animation. It's safe "insurance" against unexpected results. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, First let me say that I don't believe I have ever enjoyed a slideshow more than this one! You have done an exemplary job in every respect. From an artistic perspective, I wouldn't change a thing - it's perfect the way it is. From a technical perspective, you might consider using the "mip mapping" (anti-shimmer) on some of the sharper images for zoom to minimize the "shimmer." and perhaps turn off the mouse cursor for the entire show so that users who accidentally move the mouse don't see the cursor appear during the production. Congratulations on an incredibly good job! Best regards, Lin

Hi Paul, Unfortunately, I'm not familiar with Dreamweaver's capabilities. If there is no provision for using MP4, the alternative would be to convert your output to Flash. There are some free Flash converters out there and Flash works pretty well for the most part. There are two types of Flash output files and if your show is longer than about 3 minutes and has synchronized sound, it's usually better to convert to Flash FLV. This is because Flash SWF can't reliably sync sound for more than a couple minutes. The added benefit of FLV is that you can also add a preload so that a certain amount of the show is downloaded before playback begins. This helps assure that the viewer won't have undesirable starts and stops while file is buffering. Slower connects (non-broadband and slower DSL) can't always keep up with data feed. The preload helps greatly with this. The downside of playing an MP4 h.264 directly via a player like the one with Xara Web Developer 6 is that to my knowledge, there is no way to buffer or preload. This means that the user with a less than optimal bandwidth must start the show then immediately pause and wait for the "gas gage" to advance a few inches. This "manual buffering" then helps insure an uninterrupted playback. The up side of the Xara WD6 is that you need take no intermediate step and it only takes a couple minutes to create the complete code to upload to your site and it works wonderfully with excellent quality. The $49 price is about what you would pay for a medium quality Flash converter so it's pretty much a toss up. If Dreamweaver lets you simply drop in a Flash show and immediately outputs the code for your site, then perhaps the Flash converter might still be your best bet. Of course you still have the additional step, but it's still perhaps a more elegant solution. With the Xara WD6 approach you would simply upload the code to a folder on your website then simply "link" an image or text on your site to play the MP4. You would also need a link to return to the site from the MP4. Sorry I don't have an answer for you about directly embedding the MP4 in Dreamweaver, but I don't do that much web development any more so am not current on the top-end tools like Dreamweaver. Best regards, Lin

Just a little more information about sharpening in general. There are actually three types of "sharpening" commonly used for photography. The first two: USM (Unsharp Mask) and Sharpening share the common characteristic of adjacent pixel contrast enhancement. What makes USM differ from generalized "sharpening": is that with USM only the edges of outlines of detail are affected. The distance from these edges are adjusted via the "radius" adjustment. With generalized "sharpening" all pixels are affected rather than just the pixels outlining larger detail areas. Why do we use one rather than the other? Because at times, we want to sharpen only certain areas of an image such as with a portrait. Perhaps we want to bring out the eyes, lips and perhaps hair but keep the skin softer to minimize the appearance of skin blemishes, etc. Or we may want to sharpen only the central portion of a flower and leave the outer petals softer. To do this we use the selection tool in our software such as Photoshop and apply USM or Sharpening (depending on the results desired) to only those areas we have selected. The third type of sharpening is deconvolution. Deconvolution involves actually moving and removing pixels to obtain a true sharpening effect at the edges of detail objects. For example, were we to photograph a deep black object void of surface features such as a piece of black, smooth plastic against a pure white larger object also devoid of surface features, and we were to examine the photograph at the pixel level, we would see that at the junction where the detail of the black met the background of white, there would be not an abrupt pure white pixel beside a pure black one. What we would see instead, is a gradient of pure white to gray to pure black which would be composed of, depending on the camera used, around five pixels in the transition. What deconvolution does, in effect, is to change this gradient to a steeper one having perhaps three or even only two pixels in the transition. This process actually does truly "sharpen" the adjacent borders of detail objects. But deconvolution is not nearly as "striking" a change visually as USM or Sharpening because both USM and sharpening effectively create a slight but perceptible "boundary" around the detail which consists of contrasting pixels. Think of painting yellow letters on a red background. Now imagine painting a faint outline of black around each letter. Doing so sets off the letters and makes them look "sharper" to the human eye. This is a rather simplified explanation, but essentially what happens with USM and sharpening. The difference is in degree and extent. Ideally, a combination of USM and deconvolution can be used to really improve the appearance or sharpness of a photo. Deconvolution has the added benefit of actually being able to correct for a degree of motion blur. As Igor said, when a photo is resized either up or down using bicubic interpolation, a degree of softening is inherent in the process. So, ideally one would adjust their image and do localized USM and/or deconvolution on the main features of the original. Then when the image is resized by PTE, the USM when applied by PTE will correct only for the changes created by the resizing process. Best regards, Lin

Congratulations Igor! That's a significant (and as far as i know a "Unique") feature which isn't shared by any other slideshow software!! This is a major step for super high quality output for your program which already outclasses anything else available for image quality. Best regards, Lin

One of the interesting things to me about PTE is the amazing power to combine various techniques and animated sequences and render the output using the significantly strong tools such as 3D transform. Once the Video clip drop-in is available, I believe we will be able to use it very much as I have used animated GIF's in this demo. Lin's Animated Sleep-Aid Cube - Guaranteed to put you to sleep or your money back - LOL... http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/xample/sleepaidcubepc.zip (about 9 meg) http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/xample/sleepaidcubemac.zip (about 9 meg) Lin

see above, Lin

Hi Xaver, Couple questions: How do you know the sequences of images were "randomly chosen?" What is a "typical pose?" - typical for what? Just asking.... Would you prefer undressed male humans, or perhaps naked chickens - LOL... Best regards, Lin

Hi BB, There are a number of issues you need to consider. First, for the brief time your show ran, the memory size was pretty large so you may want to use smaller images in terms of initial size. For example, if you are going to show the slides on an HD TV, the only reason for them to be larger than 2 megapixels is if you are doing deep zooms, etc. So first resample the originals and save in no larger than 1600x1200 pixels. The second thing is that "if" precise position is essential, then you want to keep all the excess "transparency" surrounding the image for the PNG. That way the alignment will be automatically perfect. Otherwise you will have the issue of trying to resize the png's and precisely position them. That takes lots of time. The next issue is, if you want the image left behind the png cutout to look normal, then you will want to remove the subject from the original after creating the PNG. This way, you can clone over the area left from the cutout and use a cutout with much smaller overall file size. You can then remove the excess transparency thus making the memory load "much" smaller for your show. If you have Photoshop or a similar program, it should be fairly easy to clone background trees, grass, whatever, over the area where the subject originally was. Then your cutout can be sized and placed in the approximate original position and when it moves, what is left behind will look normal. The only reason to use frames for what you are doing is if you want to move two or more png cutouts simultaneously. Otherwise there is no real advantage. If you could verbally explain exactly what you want to accomplish with the png cutouts, perhaps I could suggest the best way to proceed. Best regards, Lin