Lin Evans

Hi Andrew, Very nice! The only area of possible improvement I could suggest would be to change the linear motion for the text block movement and motion of multiple image simultaneous motion to smooth rather than linear to be more in keeping with the graceful nature of the photos. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, As you can see above, it only "crops" a widescreen image on a 4:3 aspect ratio screen. It also allows "maximum resolution" on the same screen and gives a "full-screen image on an analog TV" If you make a widescreen slideshow without Pan and Scan and try to display it on a 4:3 monitor it will be cropped anyway but it will not display on PAL or NTSC at the full possible resolution. Now that you know how it works, you can choose to use it or not. You can use Google or other search engines to find terms you are not familiar with. I don't know why you couldn't find information on it by simply typing in "Pan and Scan" on your search engine. I found numerous explanations, even on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....ki/Pan_and_scan Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, It would only make sense to have it disabled by default if the "majority" of users were creating slideshows for wide screen television. Right now, even with the great influx of the new 720p/1080p televisions, the majority of televisions in the world are still the older style with 4:3 aspect ratio. Pan and Scan will autocrop wide shows for these so it still makes sense to have it as a default when more users are seeing shows on the more common aspect ratio screens. It may be that in the future it will make more sense to not have it disabled as a default. For those creating DVD rather than HD, it still makes sense as the default. For those creating 16:9 aspect ratio wide screen shows for viewing only on wide screen monitors or newer televisions at HD resolutions, it doesn't, in my view. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, LOL - That was a "major" clue. I was the first to congratulate Igor on the new announced features: My response to Xaver's question was; Logic lesson: Sounds fantastic! Many with be "very" happy with the improvements for sound!! - Translation: of latin: of many, one. Therefore I am one of many who will be "very" happy about the improvements for sound. I'm very happy about "any" improvements in what is already a fantastic program. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, Read here: http://www.divxland....pect_ratios.php Best regards, Lin

Hi Xaver, E Pluribus Unum Lin

I believe it's just a spelling error. I assume Igor means "blank" slide. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, The reason the text "Jumps" or "Shifts" is because on slide three you do not start the slide at zero time on the timeline, but already into a "zoom". Move the first keyframe on slide three back to the zero point on the timeline for slide three and everything will work as expected. Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, Sounds fantastic! Many will be "very" happy about the improvements for sound!! Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, I'm not certain about how they specifically market the product with the SONAR module. My friend is a U.S. Government employee and it's possible that his version of 2010 is one which was suggested or provided by the Government for his system. I'll have to check with him about whether it's the normal 2010 version, but I suspect it is. I'm as we speak on hold waiting to speak with a Symantec Norton AV engineer which I will do before contacting their CTO. I'm willing to give them an opportunity to correct this before jumping the "chain of command" but I've been dealing with large companies like Symantec for many years on technical issues and past experience has shown me that usually it's the "squeaky wheel" which gets the grease, and that "top down" often works better than going through the ranks to get resolution. The fact that Igor was able to get a quick resolution from AVG and other anti-threat software companies means that at least some of them are willing to cooperate. Symantec is very difficult to deal with because their top executives are, as is common with large companies, isolated from contact with the public. Fortunately, I have lots of experience in getting through the "corporate firewall" to the right person so I expect to have some success shortly for this issue. It's apparent from the fact that Symantec has provided an "exclusion" feature that they have had problems with other perfectly good software being tagged as problematic. Further, the fact that there is already a "patch" for the exclusion means that it's an ongoing issue and even the "exclusion" is apparently not working properly. Of course a file and "folder" exclusion is not a satisfactory "solution" for PTE. It would be a huge imposition for PTE users to try to gather all their PTE executables into a folder and sub-folders to prevent the SONAR module from affecting them. In addition, this would be an unworkable solution for the thousands of "potential" users who might buy PTE and already be running NAV 2010 with SONAR who would have instant "issues." In addition, anyone sending their slideshows in zipped executable format to friends or clients would have to warn them that if they use NAV 2010 they would have to create "special folders" for just their PTE files and exclude these folders from NAV 1010. In short, the "exclusion" work-around works for "application software executables," but not for software which creates "data" executable files. Symantec must "fix" this problem or face potential litigation from those loosing data. Software simply can't delete good data in the interest of "protecting" the user from viruses, trojans or other perceived threats. The proper solution is for Symantec to fix the module. The alternative solution is for NAV 2010 to be blacklisted, for the problem to be made widely public on the internet and for litigation to be initiated against the company preferably as a "class action" lawsuit. Best regards, Lin Followup: 2:23 pm MST I had no real resolution with the technical support people who simply have no power to resolve issues where the NAV software needs revision. I called and left a message for Mark Bregman, Chief Technical Officer of Symantec and hope to get a callback soon - if not, I'll keep calling him until I do. Symantec has a "form" which can be filled out by the developer to challenge "false positives," but the form is designed for false positives on application executables and not for data executable output from the program. Imagine what would happen if NAV 2010 were to flag each and every PowerPoint show as a threat - think there might be a speedy "resolution? LOL... We'll give Mark a chance to answer and try to get a resolution to this problem..... Lin

Hi Peter, Just an aside question. Are you, by any chance, using Norton Anti-Virus 2010 with SONAR? The reason is, I'm presently in contact with Symantec about the issue with the defective SONAR module erasing PTE executable files and finding them as "questionable." Perfectly good PTE exe files are being deleted by SONAR using the very latest iteration. I have been in contact with the Symantec technical support, who have been less than helpful. They keep telling me that the "solution" is to put all PTE executables into a "folder" or "folders" and "exclude" these folders from the SONAR testing. I have explained to both the first and second technical support level that this is absolutely "NOT" a solution. People who use PTE and purchase Norton Anti-Virus will summarily have their files deleted the first time they run the anti-virus. Users of PTE who send their slideshows to unknowing clients who are using NAV 2010 with SONAR will assume that the PTE files are infected. I'm awaiting a call back which was promised yesterday. If I don't receive a call in the next few hours today, I will contact the Symantec headquarters in California and speak with their Chief Technical Officer Mark Bregman about this issue and totally bypass their inept technical support which is somewhere off-shore - probably in India. Let me know if you are using NAV 2010. I have a very close friend who is very technically experienced who is using it and keeping me updated about the lack of progress in eliminating this issue. I send him files for testing every week since he downloads and installs their daily AV data updates. Thanks, Lin

Hi Joy, The grid, as Jim explained is one good way. Another, and perhaps more precise way is to temporarily load the second slide as an object on another layer on the first slide. Set the opacity for each to about 50% and carefully move the second slide's position so that the objects overlay perfectly. Write down the pan, zoom and rotate values, copy and them paste them on the second slide. Erase the temporary second slide loaded as an object on the first, change the opacity for the first slide back to its original value and your second slide will have perfect alignment with the first. Best regards, Lin

Hi Joy, I have written the developers and asked for a feature to do this. Perhaps soon they will have time to consider it. Unfortunately, what Peter has wondered about will not work. The only way I know to do this is as follows: Make a temporary slideshow using theDom's templates which you plan to place in your main show. Determine the total time for this temporary show. Determine the time length of the background music and subtract the length of theDom's template slides from this time. The time which remains must be divided equally among the "other" slides. Count the other slides then divide this remaining time by the number of "other" slides (the ones "not" in theDom's template(s)) and this is the time you need to set in Project Options for each slide. This will leave your background music extending beyond the last slide for the exact duration of those slides in theDom's template. Open the temporary slideshow where you have theDom's templates and select and copy all slides to the clipboard. Do not close this slideshow, but use "File" "Open" and open the main slideshow and "Paste" these slides. Once they are pasted, you can move them in the main slide list with the mouse where you want them in relation to the other slides. Everything should end right with the music. Best regards, Lin

Just a note to forum members. Joe is one of the finest bird photographers I've had the pleasure of speaking with. We're fortunate here on this forum to actually have two world-class bird photographers, Joe and Artie (Arthur Morris) who are both users of PTE. Joe, if you have a chance after you present your show at the local bird club and perhaps at the local television station - consider posting it on Beechbrook.com for the forum members to see. Joe's, slideshow, Decade of Feathered Friends, is a genuine treat to behold. I'm glad we could help resolve the problem and get things moving in the right direction so you can finish it up. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, I suspect that you have just statistically fallen into the "lucky" part of the gaussian curve. Obviously, not everyone has had this problem, but enough have to make it a controversial issue noticed by various professional reviewers. The mirror lockup and tripod are only to avoid any chance of vibration from the mirror or user movement causing inconsistencies where slight motion blur "might" be mistaken for improper autofocus. The actuality is that whether hand holding with a stabilized lens or solid tripod mount, the autofocus on some Canon cameras is simply inconsistent. It's very easy for users to "assume" that out-of-focus images were the result of user error in not holding the camera steady, choosing the wrong shutter speed for the focal length, etc. But when the camera is locked down on a rock-steady tripod, using a prime lens, locked up mirror and shooting multiple frame of the stationary subject and the autofocus varies from spot on to front and back focus, something isn't right. This can happen, of course, with 45 point autofocus when the subject is in motion and the autofocus points vary, but when using center-only autofocus and it happens with a stationary subject, the fault lies with the equipment and not the operator. In many, many years of photography, very much of it done professionally, I can't remember once having this problem since autofocus became available. It's only since Canon's second or third dSLR (the 10D - which wasn't too bad) that it became an issue. It was "really" bad with my 40D and absolutely a deal killer with the 1D Mark III. They lost many sales because of returns with this faulty camera. Some believe the problem was never properly addressed. One was either "lucky" to get one which worked or not. I've had friends who returned as many as three of these to find one which actually worked correctly. There were problems with the 50D and now a number of complaints about the 7D. Many of the complaints are just "soft" images and there exists lots of obfuscation about high megapixel sensors with AA filters just not "looking really sharp" when viewed at 100%. Let me just say that with some of the even higher pixel count medium format backs, the images look just fine at 100% so that's only a way of creating FUD for the purpose of avoiding blame. Bottom line, in my opinion Canon has an issue with inconsistent autofocus and has had for some time now. As I said, there are "many" very happy Canon users who have not had these issues so will be oblivious to this. On the other hand, for those of us who have had these problems and have sufficient technical and photographic savvy to know the difference in user error and equipment malfunction, it is quite discouraging, especially when there is no easy resolution. Both Canon and Nikon now allow micro adjustment of autofocus with some of their cameras to fine tune individual lenses and the camera body. This is necessary because when combined tolerances on the manufacturing and QC stack in opposite directions on a lens and camera body, there can be issues causing as much as a two pixel or more out of focus issue between a particular lens and camera. The new autofocus systems with both Canon (45 point) and Nikon (51 point) are very complex. Being able to continually autofocus on perhaps a bird in flight or a motorcycle in a race coming at or going away from the observer at a high rate of speed are commendable and quite nice for the action photographer. However, these features add to the great complexity of autofocus and with each new "feature" comes "opportunity" for failure. Canon has simply not yet worked out all the "kinks" in their autofocus and the result is inconsistency on some models and not on every copy of these models. The consumer who never really uses their camera for serious action sport or precise telephoto wildlife frames may never realize that their camera has a problem. Those of us who do, are acutely aware when a problem exists and we can sometime only find resolution to it by switching brands. This can be quite expensive when one considers the costs of duplicating lenses, flash attachments and other peripherals. Best regards, Lin

Hi Sam, Masterful presentation - bravo! The perspective correction was excellent on these photos. Did you perhaps use a tilt/shift lens, or maybe stitched multiple images? In any event, excellent photography and a very good "eye" for interesting architectural angles and views. A great choice of music, timing and thoughtful presentation (the small touches such as on the escalator didn't go unnoticed). Best regards, Lin

Hi Xaver, If the industry would get their equipment "right" and take care of issues such as inconsistent autofocus (Canon), people would probably stick with one brand. Unfortunately, the consumer becomes the pawn in a game of "how far can we get on our brand name" before we have to produce consistent quality control? Having used Canon dSLR's for some years (since their first model, the D30 became available), I switched too because they have produced a number of inconsistent models which won't autofocus properly. I had these issues first crop up with my $8000 Canon Pro EOS 1DS. Then again with my 10D, and 40D and I see evidence that it continues with the 50D and 7D. It was an extensive issue with the rather expensive EOS 1D Mark III. Put the camera on a tripod, lock it down, use mirror lockup and remote release and take multiple frames of a stationary subject. The camera will variously front focus, back focus, correct focus. Some individual copies of the cameras autofocus correctly nearly every time. Others do not, and multiple trips to the Canon repair facility do not correct what appears to be a pervasive fault. So to insure at least one good frame, users often take up a "machine gun" approach to photography. Fortunately some of the Canon models would shoot up to 10 frames per second and out of 10 frames maybe two or three would actually be properly focused. Nikon too has had some issues with this same type problem, but not nearly as pervasively as Canon. I've had relatively perfect autofocus with my Pro body Nikons. So the consumer, in a quest for some consistency, buys either a new model or switches brands. The consumer then becomes the "looser" and the camera manufacturer becomes the "winner" because they sell yet more faulty equipment and never have to ultimately be responsible for putting out inferior equipment. So you are ultimately correct.... Sony has set new standards with their low priced, extremely high resolution top-end model which can be had for about a third of what Nikon and Canon get. No, it doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the uber expensive Canon or Nikon, but it produces even higher resolution images than Canon's best and equal to the flagship Nikon D3X. The Zeiss lenses? Pretty good I would say. I suppose one could do worse than changing to Sony/Zeiss. That would make Sony happy and maybe the consumer too.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Joy, PTE doesn't have a Flash conversion provision. PTE creates AVI, MPG II, MP4 h.264, and Windows and MacInitoh native executable code. There are several "free" Flash converters, but I can't recommend any of them personally. A "good" Flash converter will cost variously between $39 and $300.00 U.S.D. depending on the iteration of Flash, whether or not there is a Flash player and the features of the Flash player. Flash players can be confusing to the uninitiated. A player is necessary to play back Flash code for your web visitors and must reside on their computer. This Flash player is an Adobe (MacroMedia) free device which almost everyone has. However, to make Flash play back and look like "you" want it to, you must have a customized Flash player which you place on your website. These vary from elementary and basic to fully customizable complete with your name, etc., and Flash converters may or may not include this. Free Flash converters almost never have customizable Flash players if they have any. The least expensive way to get a decent embedded Flash conversion is Youtube or Vimeo. PTE can automatically upload your PTE MP4 h.264 video to Youtube or Vimeo where it will be converted to Flash and embedding code provided. You simply place this embedding code on your website and the visitor sees your slideshow via Youtube, etc. Best regards, Lin

Hi Betsy, PTE allows many kinds of different animation, but you need to explain what you mean by "animated pictures?" You have pan, zoom, rotate, masking, the ability to have multiple images simultaneously, etc., but if you mean something like "animated gif" images then no, PicturesToExe doesn't use animated gifs. If you could be specific and let us know what exactly you are trying to do, then perhaps we can give you some guidance. Best regards, Lin

Hi Joe, I received your email, but no link to mediafire?? Send me a link and I'll take a look. Best regards, Lin

Hi, In the "Project Options" on the "Music Tab" do you have a check beside "Repeat Music after Playing"? If so, that would cause the background music to repeat until the slideshow ends. If this is checked, uncheck it. If you want the slides to be spread out so that the last slide ends as the music finished, then click on the "Timeline" button (from the Opening Main Screen) then click on the "Timed Points" and then on "Arrange All Points." This will divide the music length by the slide display time including transitions and the music should stop just as the last slide leaves the screen. Let me know if this solves the problem. Best regards, Lin

If you have the bandwidth (fast internet broadband) and time, use the PTE zip function, post it on MediaFire.com and I'll sort it out for you and repost. Best regards, Lin

After arranging all points on the timeline, what does the "graph" show as a relationship between images and sound? Does the sound end at the end of the last slide in the graph, or does it end sometime after the display of the last image? How did you add the music/bird sounds? Are they all added via Project Options or do you have some sounds/music added to individual slides? Are all music selections mp3 format or otherwise? If your show wasn't so large, I would suggest you post a zipped PTE and let us take a look, but it probably would be an unreasonable request. Lin

Go to the "Timeline" Click on the "Timed Points" button the click on "Arrange All Points." This should solve your problem.... Lin

Hi, O.K., now we have somewhere to start from. By the way a drive designator is A: B : C: D: E: F: G:, etc., with a Windows default being C:. A "Platform" means whether you are using a Windows or Mac or Linux, etc. configuration. There should be a "letter" after the "My Passport" and I believe that is "I:" as you mentioned below. So the first thing you want to do is see whether PTE is seeing the "I:" drive at all. So open PTE then look at the top left quadrant of the screen and you should see a series of drive designators such as A: C: D: and among them "I:". If you do not see "I:" then your My Passport drive is not being recognized by the operating system for some reason. If you do see it, then click on the drive designator (the little icon with the I:) and navigate to a folder where you are "certain" you have jpg files. Click on "View" and choose "Classic" and tell us what appears in the slide list. Best regards, Lin