Lin Evans

Hi Allison, PTE will eventually be available as a MacIntosh application - the developers have been working endlessly on the MacIntosh version, but right now it is a Windows application which can output native MacIntosh executable code. To do this on a MacIntosh you must have a Mac which is Intel based and which can run Windows in order to create your slideshows with PTE. Our Mac users are using Bootcamp, etc. We have a number of MacIntosh users right now who can advise you, but the native MacIntosh output works "very" well. Here's a little sample PTE slideshow in Mac Format. Just download, unzip and play on your MacIntosh: http://www.learntoma.../seasonsmac.zip Best regards, Lin

I just received an email from Vimeo. They are now offering 1080p where they were previously limited to 720p. They are also beta testing a new player which may eventually have implications for our PTE shows, but now only those using Safari, Chrome, or IE with Chrome Frame installed. This new HTML5 player may eventually allow smoother playback but is not yet full screen. Time will tell, but at least Vimeo now allows full 1080p presentation. I have also noticed lately that apparently their servers have been upgraded because playback is quicker. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, I think you have a misconception about what "pan and scan" is. Please read this: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Pan_and_scan Best regards, Lin

Hi Andrew, The basic answer is "no," you will not be able to run executable code from your website. To run a PTE show it will need to be converted to Flash or AVI or MPEG or MP4 h.264 or some other video format. Web hosts will not let you run executable code on their servers. The only way you would ever be able to do this is to own your own server and believe me, that gets very expensive very quickly. The way to have people run your show as an executable is to zip it and upload to Beechbrook or your own site and provide a link. Of course you "could" use MediaFire or other service, but if you have the storage capacity it's just as easy to upload it to your own site. You just need FTP software and you will be able to access your web host's server where you will see the file structure. You create your own folders and upload to one of the folders. Then you provide a "link" for your viewers to click on which allows them to download your zipped executable file and play it on their system. Good FTP software is available free. When you install the software on your computer, you will see your own hard drive tree on the left and when logged in on your host's server you will see their hard drive file structure which they have provided for you on their server on the right. You simply find the zip file on the left, navigate to where you want it to go on the right and click on the appropriate "send" and your own zip file gets uploaded to your web site. You then provide the link. Let's say your zip file was called andrew1.zip and was on your C: drive in a folder called slideshows. It would then look like: You just find your file on the far left using the tree, then on the far right you create and navigate to the folder where you want it to go and then click on the "arrow" pointing to the right. To load a file from your web server to your own hard disk, you reverse the process by finding the file on the right and the folder where you want it to go on the left then click the arrow pointing to the left. In the case I demonstrated above, I would give a link such as: htt"p"://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/andrew/andrew1.jpg The "P" would not be in quotes. If it's "quality" of presentation you are looking for and you want your viewers to be able to run the show from your website, then about the best you will be able to do is MP4 h.264 at HD 1080p or 1600x1200 and upload to Youtube where it will be converted to high quality Flash. You can then embed the link on your website and when someone plays it it will appear to play on your own site even though it is actually being sent from Youtube. If you want to purchase additional software, you can create high quality Flash shows and place them on your own website, but this is more difficult and much more expensive than just uploading to Youtube and embedding the link provided by Youtube in your own website. Best regards, Lin

Hi Boogie, CMYK has quite a different gamut than RGB or sRGB and is primarily only used for printing by offset printers. By using Cyan, Magenta, Yellow and Black (K stands for "key" or black) printers can approximate the color spectrum but can't print nearly all the subtle colors in image created for display on devices which use primaries of Red, Blue and Green mixed with varying intensity of light. Normally, one would not want to use CMYK unless the images were going to an offset print for a magazine, etc. The color spectrum is much better on any display if the images are in RGB or sRGB. The interesting thing is how you came to have your images saved in CMYK in the first place? Digital cameras never uses CMYK and output from scanners, etc., don't use it either. Generally CMYK is only used by printers who are preparing the files for offset printing and they have specialized conversion software to convert from RGB color space to CMYK. It's interesting that this has, to my knowledge, never come up before but that's probably because its so rare to see this color space outside of the print business. Best regards, Lin

Hi Nordlicht, I'm not certain there is a "best way" but using the PTE video codec without Video Builder results in an AVI where with Video Builder you have options of MP4 h.264 as well a MP2 so perhaps we can assume that Video Builder is more versatile. For animation, probably the MP4 h.264 is preferable because of frame rate versatility and better compression, but it's actually more a preference than anything else. Best regards, Lin

There are several options to play back hd on your own television without BluRay including TV's which have USB input provisions as well as by using Western Digital and similar media players, or even connecting your laptop and playing executable files via the HDMI inputs, but the primary reason for creating BluRay or HD optical media is to share with friends or clients. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, Yes, just a convenience. Sometimes, when the original file size being used is not too large so as to place a burden on the hardware, I find it easier to accommodate the 1920x1080 wide screen by just positioning the image to encompass the same geography as it would have contained had I physically cropped the image in Photoshop, Perhaps this habit of mine is less useful to some. I have a number of clients who use 2500x1600 pixel displays. I often make a copy of my originals sized at 2500x1667 and then simply adjust the position to slightly crop the vertical aspect to fit the 2500x1600. I just adjust the zoom in PTE for these essentially four megapixel images and "pseudo crop" by positioning for 1080p rather than again manipulate the images thus having a third set of essentially the same captures. I also frequently shoot my wildlife using a Sigma SD14 and sometimes an SD10 where the native file sizes are 2640x1760 or 2268x1512 respectively so that there is only a small amount of zoom either way to fill a 4:3 aspect ratio or to accommodate a 1920x1080 without reworking the originals at all. Best regards, Lin

There is some relevant information available on the web concerning BluRay and HDTV which may be of interest to those who have not yet purchased a high definition television. Today there are three different technologies which are available along with some variations of these basic themes. Also all BluRay players and burners are not created equally versatile. I found this explanation which was put out by LG (A manufacturer of high quality television receivers). Keep in mind when reading that there will be some bias toward LG and that other very high quality systems such as Samsung, Visio, Sharp, Sony, Panasonic, etc., are probably just as good and in some cases perhaps even better. But it is nice that LG produces a very thorough explanation of differences here and I think it's worth reading for the value of the general information. To begin, a quote from the site which is of interest: ================= There are three varieties of 1080p: 1080p/60 indicates that each frame is repeated twice every 30th of a second, a format increasingly found in high-definition camcorders;1080p/30, the standard frame rate for live or recorded HD video; and,1080p/24, which displays the same 24 frames per second as standard movie film, and the standard Blu-ray frame rate used to preserve the film frame rate the filmmakers intended. Not all Blu-ray players can output 1080p/24 and not all HDTVs can display all three 1080p frame rates. However, all LG Full HD 1080p LCD and plasma HDTVs are capable of displaying all three 1080p frame rates via either HDMI or component video connections without the digital flim-flam found on lesser-endowed HDTVs. Plus, LG's 24p Real Cinema processing further enhances the reproduction of films on Blu-ray when connected to the 1080p/24-capable LG BD300 Network Blu-Ray Disc Player. ====================== Link to good information: http://us.lge.com/CES2009/education/benefits.html Lin

Hi Dimmy, Understood.. The reason for my reply was that it wasn't clear to me why Andrew wanted to reduce the file size and whether he understood that compressing a file would not help with other than storage capacity or transfer loads and times. It was only your suggestion for the compression software that prompted the general reminder; it wasn't really directed at anyone in particular. Perhaps many of us who have extensive experience with file formats understand compression and how files behave in memory, but actually there are "many" who post here who apparently don't. The fact that I have had numerous emails about my "puzzle" test files which exploit these differences tells me that there is still lots of confusion. Two executable files having virtually identical sizes by virtue of their components behave totally differently because of compression of the component files. One works very smoothly in almost any system, while the other, which expands in memory, can challenge even very good GPU's. To many observers who don't realize that components in one of the executables have been greatly compressed, it seems to be a very strange situation. What I've been trying to determine is "why" Andrew wants a smaller file size. Is it because of jerky pans, stutter, slow loading, or other memory or GPU related issues or just because he wants to be able to load the exe file on limited space media or to conserve space for a lengthy show on a CD, etc.? My point is that by changing pixel dimensions via crop, the true file size and all that implies will be diminished. By compression, only the load times, transfer times and storage capacities will be affected and there will be no real differences in performance viz the GPU or CPU. Best regards, Lin

Hi Guys, Keep in mind that no matter how "compressed" a file is for storage purposes, it will still expand to its full "uncompressed" size in memory. So if the purpose of compression is for storage or to reduce the size of a download, etc., then compression of jpg, png, tiff, etc., can be useful. However, if the reason for trying to make the file size smaller is to facilitate the processor or memory of the computer or GPU, then compression doesn't help and what you need to do is to reduce the "dimensions" of the file to conserve memory, etc. As long as there is no compromise in image "quality" then reducing dimensions can be an effective way of reducing the load on the CPU or GPU and perhaps making the zooms, pans, etc., run more smoothly. But "compressing" the file, though helpful for reducing upload or download times, has no beneficial effect in terms of smoothness of playback, etc. So utilities which do lossless compression of files will not help for this purpose. Best regards, Lin

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: lin@learntomakeslideshows.net 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