Lin Evans

Hi Andrew, Tell me which image editor you have. If you don't have one which allows resize then download the freeware Irfanview. Almost any of the editors will let you resize your PNG file and in resizing, you lower the pixel count thus also make the storage size smaller. http://www.irfanview.com What are the dimensions of your PNG file? Resizing will not change the transparency, only make the overall dimensions smaller. You can always change the "zoom" in PTE which does not affect the original file in terms of storage requirements. Also, if you can "crop" any of the transparency around the image, that will automatically reduce the megabyte size. For example, if you have a 1024x768 size PNG file and "most" of it is transparency, just use the crop tool and crop away the majority of the transparency thus leaving the main image surrounded by a tiny bit of transparency. Even a couple pixels of transparency around the object will retain the object's full surround as transparent. Better yet, post a link to the file you want resized and we can quickly do that and see what the differences are in "megabytes." Best regards, Lin

Hi Andrew, First you need to be very careful with your choice of words. If I understand you correctly I don't think you were originally referring to "resize" but rather compress in terms of storage. You can "resize" any type of file in terms of pixel dimensions, but some file types are generally "uncompressed" so that if you want smaller file storage size you must change the "dimensions" in terms of the number of pixels on the horizontal and vertical axis. If you change the number of pixels (dimensions) then the amount of "bits, bytes, megabytes, etc." will change accordingly. You can re-dimension any file type. Second, you probably don't want to make a GIF file rather than a PNG because you loose millions of possible colors. GIF files have very limited colors while PNG's have the same number of color possibilities as jpg's or tiff's. Finally, if you are using a later version of PTE, you should be able to load gif files with no problems. PTE sees GIF's just as it does jpg's and png's. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ed, You need to zip up the entire project complete with images or all we will be able to see are missing photo messages. If you zip your entire project and post a link for it, and let me know exactly what you want to happen, I'll program it for you and zip it back up and you will be able to see where you may have gone astray. You can email the link to me at: [email protected] Best regards, Lin

Hi Dan, Looks like you and Rita had some great adventures in 2009! Love the gardens at home - I've always wanted one of those "garden nymphs" but Sherry won't let me have any "naked" girl statues - LOL! Did you take the motorcycle in the back of your truck or is your trailer a "toy carrier" with the back which opens up? Anyway, great show and excellent photos! Best regards, Lin

Hi Carol, That's good to know! How much image quality degradation does there appear to be when you use greater compression? Does it affect things like animation smoothness, etc.? Best regards, Lin

Hi Don, Essentially, image quality will not be enhanced by having a greater pixel count in your files on the slide list in PTE than the display device which the slideshow will be viewed "except" in the aforementioned example of deep zooms. The way I handle it (deep zooms) is to only use higher pixel count (resolution) slides where I will be doing zooms to reveal detail, etc., and then I generally start the zoom with an image of normal display resolution and duplicate my settings for a "quick" "no transition" into a "crop" of a second slide which constitutes a high resolution duplicate of that portion of the original slide. This saves some storage space and is easier on video cards which are less than optimal. The way you are preparing your slides seems logical and appropriate to me. You can also just do your pseudo "crops" right in PTE by simply adjusting the position of the larger image to duplicate what you achieve by doing a physical crop in Photoshop. One of my pet "annoyances" is that the movie industry has apparently dictated that we use a 16:9 aspect ratio which is counter intuitive for the photographer who has many dollars invested in 35mm format equipment. It forces us to shoot wide and waste "pixels" to accommodate the later need to crop for display on HD TV or even on commonly produced LED/LCD monitors which are increasingly being produced at 1080p (1920x1080). Even though some of the newer dSLR's allow for direct capture at at 16:9 aspect ratio, this wastes valuable sensor resolution. I suppose as higher resolution sensors become commonplace, the damage is less problematic, but it is interesting to see that the very "best" movie format (in my opinion) IMAX 3D, is still much more similar to our 3:2 than to 16:9. Having numerous digital cameras of both professional and enthusiast level dSLR and digicam type, I just hate to have to change my shooting style which has been habitual since 35mm format was first available to one which forces me to shoot wider than I like so that I can "crop" to accommodate 16:9 aspect ratio. The important thing, in my opinion, is to use high enough resolution on the slide list but not to overdo. In the recent past I have created slideshows for some of my art gallery clients who purchased 9 megapixel displays. These were wonderful for non animated slideshows, but were incredibly expensive (over $6,000 U.S.D. plus another $2K for video cards). Now most of them have gone to the 30" 4 megapixel displays which can be had for under $2,000 and can be run with a number of single reasonably powerful video cards. The Apple Cinema 30" 2560x1600 pixel display is quite popular and our PTE shows are striking on this display which retails for about $1700. For shows on these displays, I find it necessary to use at least four megapixel files and for deep zooms I use full resolution images from my cameras and sometimes interpolate with PhotoZoom Pro 3 to get it right for deep zooms. As for actual compression, I doubt that you will see any real differences between level 12 and level 6 Photoshop compression in most cases. For those few slides where you do deep zooms, I would keep it at at least Photoshop 8 especially if there is any text involved. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, I can't tell you how to create a DVD menu structure with the software from the link I suggested trying because I don't have a BluRay player to test it with. However, Chris said he tried it and didn't get sound. That "may" be a problem with the software or it could be settings - I can't say, however, you don't need a BluRay Burner (they are quite expensive) to burn files to BluRay format. Software like Pinnacle Studio 12 can format and burn a standard 4.7 gig DVD blank to BluRay with a standard DVD burner. You can only put about 15 minutes of slideshow on a 4.7 gigabyte DVD blank, but that's usually more than the length of "most" of our slideshows anyway. What you might want to do if you don't already have one is to get a BluRay player (some as little as $100 U.S.D.) and download a trial of Pinnacle or other software having the capability of formatting and burning standard DVD media as BluRay. It might save you a good chunk of change. Best regards, Lin

Everyone keep in mind that you can burn a BluRay format disk on a standard DVD media blank with a standard DVD burner; you just need the right software and a BluRay player to play it on an HD television or computer. Several companies make software to do this with. Pinnacle Studio 12 or later can do this as can some versions of Nero and other software. It's possible to get about 15 minutes of HD at 1080p resolution on a standard 4.7 gigabyte DVD media blank. You regular DVD burner can, with the proper software burn a properly formatted BluRay file on regular DVD media. Generally, our PTE slideshows are not longer than 15 minutes, so spending money for legitimate BluRay media, even at the discounted prices is not necessary. Best regards, Lin

Hi Don, To augment Brian's example, here is a link to a quick slideshow and a couple sample images. I took a quick jpeg snap of a motor home with a 40D. I saved the jpg at Photoshop's lowest compression level 12. I then saved the original again at Photoshop's compression level 3. Next, I downsampled both the level 12 and level 3 to 1024x683 pixels then used PhotoZoom Pro to upsample both to 12000x8000 pixels. I cropped a like section of the vehicle license plate from the level 3 and level 12 compressionsand placed those in the slideshow so you can see the effects of high compression with a sample from your own model camera. I include links to the original interpolated crops: http://www.learntoma...compression.zip (about 6.5 meg Windows exe) http://www.learntoma...ion/level12.jpg http://www.learntoma...sion/level3.jpg Best regards, Lin

Hi Don, First, let me explain the "numbers" used for compression. I'm assuming your are using Photoshop or a similar photo editing program since you mentioned 12. The higher the number, the "less" compression. A Photoshop 12 compressed jpg file has very little compression. Any number below 4 is very highly compressed. High compression with jpg images can leave artifacts which will become especially visible when the image is displayed at full size such as during deep zooms. Compression is only a storage media space saver. Once the file is displayed on a computer, the image is uncompressed so that it expands to its full size just as an uncompressed tif (tagged image format) file. All jpg's are 8 bit so they expand to the same size as an 8 bit tif file. Typically, if you use nothing greater (no lower number) than compression level 8 in Photoshop, there will be no significant "visible" difference in your slideshow even if you do deep zooms to and beyond 100% of the full size of your image. Some are happy with even a compression level of 6 or 7, but personally I don't use a higher compression than 8 myself. If you are using full sized files from your camera in your slideshow, they will be downsampled considerably for most presently available displays. The highest resolution computer monitor currently available is about 9.2 megapixels, so even were you displaying your 40D (10 megapixel) images on such a system, they would be downsampled to a degree. There are not very many of these and they take special video cards (usually two) to produce this resolution. The next best monitors produce a 4 megapixel resolution (2560x1600) and few have these. The most common higher resolution displays are 1920x1200 pixels with 1920x1080 resolution becoming quite common to match the 1080p HD televisions. So essentially, when use images at their full original pixel dimensions in your slideshow, they will be downsampled considerably. The process of doing this can ameliorate some of the artifacts of compression which would otherwise be visible were you to zoom to the original pixel dimensions for displaying a part of your image. Where you really see significant compression artifacts is when you compress an already downsampled file greatly. If you were to downsample your originals to about 1024x683 pixels then compress them using 4 or 5 in Photoshop and then zoom in on an area you will quickly see the jpg artifacts, especially if you have an LCD display or a really sharp CRT display. The thing to keep in mind is that you damage your images when you use great compression (low numbers) so always work with a copy and preserve your originals. Best regards, Lin

Hi, Assuming you are referring to "comments" - you use "Project Options" "Coments Tab" choose your font, your drop shadow, etc., then next to the Bold, Underscore, Italics to the right, click on the "A" and select your color. Then Click on "Set For Existing Slides" button. On the other hand, if you are entering "Text" on each slide by using the "Text" under Objects and Animations, you have to set the individual color for each slide because you have the ability to apply animations and different effects to multiple text on any slide. For normal "captions" you probably should use the first method. Best regards, Lin

Hi Maureen, Breathtakingly beautiful in every respect! What a fantastic place and wonderful presentation - Thank You!! Lin

Hi Mick, Project Options, Comments Tab, Insert Template - then choose filename or filename with extension. If you want it on all slides, then click on Set For Existing Slides button. Best regards, Lin

Hi Chris, The problem is one of two possibilities: Sony Vegas Platinum 9 can't burn mp4 h.264 to BluRay or you do not have a proper mp4 h.264 file output from PTE. The burn software has to be able to convert mp4 h.264 to BluRay before the burn. I'm guessing that Sony Vegas Movie Platinum Studio does not do this so that your mp4 h.264 is not being properly converted. There are numerous people making mp4 h.264 files with PTE and burning to BluRay so perhaps trying a different burning software which can convert may be the solution. Just because Sony Vegas Platinum can create HD media and burn to BluRay doesn't mean it can properly handle an MP4 h.264 file. I don't know the specifics about Vegas Platinum 9, I have a much older version of the Sony Vegas Video suite which doesn't deal with BluRay, but I do know that it's very easy to make BluRay discs from PTE mp4 h.264 files which were created with Video Builder at 1080p resolution using other software. I would download other software and try it to let you know which works, but I don't have a BluRay burner. I have several friends who use PTE to make BluRay discs all the time so I can tell you that it works very well. If you are not creating an HD original mp4 h.264 out of PTE's Video Builder it won't work, but if your burn software can't convert the mp4 h.264 it won't work either. Could you tell me exactly your workflow? Which choices, the setting you are using, etc., to create your mp4 h.264 file with PTE? Also could you tell me the brand and model of the BluRay burner you are using? You can get this info about the burner by running dxdiag from the run command. It's built into all versions of Windows. Here's a link to one software which does burn mp4 h.264 to Bluray - it might be worth trying this to solve your convert and burn issues: http://www.ripbluray...to-blu-ray.html Best regards, Lin

Hi Chris, Do try Ray's suggestion and use alternative burning software. I'm not certain which version of Vegas Movie Studio you have, but the best info I can come up with is that they suggest other burning software so perhaps this is the whole issue? Best regards, Lin

Hi Chris, If you have the "Deluxe" version of PTE with "Video Builder" then you don't want to create an AVI file at all. What you do is go ahead and create the show at 1920 x 1080 (not 1900) and then click on the "Create HD Video for PC and Mac" button and choose 1920x1080 High Quality which will create an MP4 h.264 file which you then can burn with whichever software you have which will burn BluRay. I'm not familiar with the newer versions of Vegas Movie Studio. If it is designed to burn BluRay then it should work fine, but you don't want to create an AVI file at all for the purpose of creating a BluRay disc. Check your Vegas Movie Studio specs to be sure that it's not just burning at DVD resolution which would not be interpreted by your BluRay media so would create expensive coasters. Best regards, Lin

Hi Chris, PTE's Video Builder doesn't burn BluRay, so first you make an HD show in 1080p using PTE. This will be a mp4 h.264 format at 1920x1080 pixel resolution. Then you use 3rd party software to burn this mp4 h.264 to your BluRay media. If you could describe the problem you are having, which type of PTE file you created, the nature of the error's and let us know which other software you are using perhaps someone can help. Also which OS and version you are using would help. Best regards, Lin

Hi JD, You will have to use alternate burning software to burn your BluRay disk from the mp4 h.264 output of PTE. Video Builder will burn DVD's but not BluRay format. Best regards, Lin

Hi Folks, I think that whatever our opinions might be, we should couch them "as opinions" rather than in some implied condescending tone regardless of our native language. I believe it's inappropriate to imply that because only "X" number of people have responded that it means a particular show was not well received. It could be because of the size of the download, other interests by visitors at the time or myriad reasons having absolutely nothing to do with the "quality" of the presentation. I believe it's inappropriate to first "apologize for" and then continue with negative criticism. If one has negative criticism, just say it without the obsequious preface. If it is intended to express a personal opinion, just be certain that this is made clear. Also words such as: only serve to express a personal opinion, yet are couched as if they were somehow coming from one with an attitude of implied superiority. The following is inappropriate: The insinuated "quality" of a photographer's equipment used to capture an image is an inappropriate comment, and even more so when the opinion, as expressed, is simply wrong. Cameras with "small chips" do not generally reveal "quality issues" in a 1024 pixel display. I would interpret it as a thinly veiled insult and I can certainly see why the OP responded as he did. The above is implicitly a condescending attitude as might be given by a "teacher" to a "student".... Not appropriate at all in my opinion. It's quite obvious that the images "were" made with a wide angle lens so why the unnecessary comments?": My point is that we all need to be aware of how our message will be received. Not only the words we use, but also the "tone" we use is important. The whole criticism could have been simply stated as: "I didn't like the length of the show and I would have made a similar one no longer than "X". " I don't care for animation in "my" shows and would prefer a show with less of it." The problem with the response is "tone." Whether intentional or accidental by virtue of one's writing style it sends a message which is likely to elicit a "knee jerk" response. Another response by another poster implies that the OP might not be as skilled as he thinks and suggests that if the OP were to enter his slideshow in certain competitions he might find out where he ranks...... That too is inappropriate in my opinion. Lin

Let's get through this first slideshow, then my suggestion would be for you to download and view appropriate tutorials from the Tutorials and Articles section of the forum so you get the basics before trying to do too much. I think I have around 22 or so AVI tutorials covering most of the features which you might use to get started and get a good grasp of the basics. First - get the first slide exactly like you want the rest to be in terms of the animations. Second - copy and paste the first slide in the main slide list as many times as you intend to have slides in the show. Third - at the top right of the main screen (not objects and animations) you will find between "comment" and "add sound" a "change slide" button. Click on this and simply navigate and choose the second slide and all keyframes, timings and sequences you have created for the first slide will now be assigned to the second slide. Fourth - continue this for the remainder of the slides. This is how you effectively "copy" the keyframes... A "reflection" is very easy. What you do is duplicate the main slide in the objects list, use the 3D Transform feature to "flip" the duplicated image vertically and position it with the regular Objects and Animations tools. Probably you will also want to decrease the opacity on the reflected image a little to darken it and make it more natural looking. Leave the checkmark on the "Show Back Side" so when you continue to rotate the image vertically you will see the "flipped" side. The essence is that you need to learn the basics of how the Pan, Zoom, Rotate, 3D Transform, Opacity and Keyframes, etc., work before you get too enthusiastic with your slidshow effects. It won't take long, to learn, but better to take one step at a time and a good place to begin is to download the AVI tutorials and go at it in a methodical manner to get a good base to work from. Experimentation will help you, but only if you limit the amount of effects you try to program at at time because when things get too complex, too fast, it creates lots of frustration for you. Best regards, Lin

Hi Johann, Keep it simple. Though there are other ways, perhaps the "easiest" way is to simply place all files at the root level on your CD. Make no "folders" and simply call the PDF file by identifying it under the "Run Application or Open File" by name and extension and let the user's operating system find its PDF reader on the computer being used. This works very much as when you use the "run" command in Windows then simply click on a PDF file. Windows "knows" by the extension that it needs to use whichever PDF reader has been installed and identified. For example, I use a "Nuance" reader rather than Acrobat and this works perfectly for me. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mary, Beautiful images! I'd hate to be a ground squirrel in Flagstaff about now - LOL. You guys really got hammered! Best regards, Lin

Hi Joanne, Though probably no one here has either of these cards, they are both top performers and either "should" make you a top-end video card as long as your new PC has a decent power supply. Don't settle for anything less than about 750w. The ATI card is a bit more powerful than the nVidia according to tests at the site I provided for benchmarks here: http://www.videocard...et/gpu_list.php You can look both up and see their respective performances. Either are extremely powerful so you should not have any problems running virtually "any" PTE show no matter how complex the animations. Best regards, Lin

Hi Joanne, If you have a router, then you essentially have a hardware firewall. If you don't have, you can always get one. If you have DSL then you already have one. If you are using cable to connect to the internet, you probably have one. The router sits between your input from either the telephone, cable or other source of internet and your computer. This router connects via ethernet to your computer or via wireless signal to peripheral computers such as your laptop. The router (hardware) contains a firewall which prevents unwanted incoming. Your sofware firewall prevents outgoing and AVG takes care of the rest. You really shouldn't need anything else. Best regards, Lin

If you are using a router (hardware firewall) that's about all you need. I think more people get into trouble trying to be overly protective than from having too little anti-threat protection. AVG Free plus a good router should provide all the protection you need. Other opinion may differ, but essentially that's all I've been using on my system for several years without any issues. Lin