Lin Evans

Hi Dom, Thanks! I edited my original post to explain that one must have version 6 beta 21 or better to get the 3D depth function of Z position. Best regards, Lin

Hi Folks, On my last tutorial on the new 3D Transform features of PTE Version 6, I covered the X and Y transform and showed how it might be used to make reflections or flip images vertically or horizontally, but I saved the "Z" Position for another tutorial. theDom posted a very nice example of how the Z Position works, so I thought it would be prudent to make the brief tutorial explaining how this works. You can download the AVI from either the PTE Made Easy (PTE For Smarties) section of the tutorial forum page, or here for your convenience: As Dom pointed out in the post below - this only works with PTE version 6 beta 21 or greater.... Igor made changes from the earlier version which was actually only a perspective zoom. The new Z Position feature functions as a 3D "depth" feature and is indeed a fantastic addition to PTE. http://www.learntoma...3dzposition.zip Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, Be certain that the cube can accommodate a sufficiently large power supply to drive the necessarily powerful video card. I discovered when I ordered a Dell Inspiron 530 Desktop with the largest power supply available for it that it was insufficient to drive the nVidia 8800 GT video card. At that time, the nVidia 8800 GT was close to the top in terms of performance, but now it rests well below half way down the list with a rating of 949 compared to over 2023 for a top end nVidia GTX 285 card. The more powerful video cards generally require at least a 500 watt or greater power supply (I installed a 750 watt one in my Inspiron) and also must have connectors to furnish power to the card itself. Smaller, less powerful video cards draw all needed power from the BUS. The larger video cards also may take a couple slots away from the motherboard. They don't "use" two slots, but their size makes it impossible to fit another card into an adjacent slot. This may or may not be an issue for the "cube" but it's worth investigating early in the decision making process rather than later. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, You find the "low quality of resizing" in PTE - Objects and Animations - Property Tab I think the word you are looking for is "snap to grid" but it doesn't apply here unless you were using the grid feature. If you place a check mark beside "low quality of resizing" you "should" be able to line everything up perfectly. Don't let it confuse you, it's really very simple. You add a rectangle before you place your objects. Next, highlight the word rectangle in the objects list, right click the mouse, choose "Add" then "New Image" choose the pieces by holding down the CTRL key on the key board and click each with the mouse. Then you simply click on "Open" and PTE will place the separate pieces offset under you image name. They are now "children" of the rectangle. Any pans, zooms or rotates you perform on the rectangle object will be reflected with all the pieces, but you can also move the pieces independently of the parent rectangle. The "children" all inherit the motion of the parent rectangle, but may have their own movement independently as well. So, if you want to zoom the assembled image, you don't need to zoom each piece individually. You just zoom the rectangle. If you want to pan the assembled image you pan the rectangle, if you want to rotate the assembled image, you rotate the rectangle. Play around with it and you will quickly see how it works. Best regards, Lin

Hi Kosheyar, Only one object can be be at front or at back at a time. Each object occupies a separate layer so the command "bring to front" or "send to back" can logically only apply to a single object. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, I'm not sure what the problem might be. I did a slice demo a while back and had not problems at all lining things up perfectly. I'm wondering if there might be some issue with your video driver, etc.? I'll test a few possibilities and get back to you. Did you by any chance not have a checkmark beside "low quality of resizing?" If not, put a checkmark there to avoid pixel rounding and try again. Also, you may want to put all of you pieces under a rectangle as children so when and if you decide to do something in the way of animation with the combined image, you won't have a problem with realignment. When you make fine adjustments to position of the pieces, don't use the mouse because it isn't precise enough. Do the very fine adjustments with numeric insertions. I begin each "split" by aligning everything perfectly then write down the numeric for each piece's X and Y pan. This way you can manipulate the slices any way you want via the keyframe then simply enter the original keyframe numbers for each piece to reassemble them perfectly. Lin

Hi, It sounds like your are resizing (you mention of checking or not the "low quality resize" button). Find the Photoshop size of your original image then open PTE with that original slide loaded. Go to Objects and Animations and click on the "Common" tab. Click on the Size and Position in Pixels button. Click on the "In Pixels" tab. Type in the exact pixel dimensions as given by Photoshop for your image under "size." Now test it with the preview and it should be identical to your Photoshop image. How are you getting the "crop" from your example? Are you using a screen capture tool, etc. If you resize by either using the bounding rectangle or by typing in zoom dimensions, the image is being manipulated. If you play the image back at its original size there should be no change Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, What magnification are you using in O&A? Crank it up to about 400% to do your pixel match and you shouldn't have any problems. A thin line between segments means that you don't have a perfect pixel match. This should be apparent at large magnification, but possibly not on a smaller screen. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, I get it, I just believe that there is no "correct" answer, only preference. It's like arguing whether Apricots or Plums are "better." For me the large screen TV is better; for you the projector is better. It's all a matter of "taste." Best regards, Lin

Hi Max, Yes, you can easily make the reflection at any angle both horizontally or vertically. You have complete control via the X and Y axis. The reflection I used was 180 degrees or a complete vertical flip, but you can set the angle to any degree for either the main image or the reflection or both. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, You do see the fallacy in that logic, don't you? if 2' 8" and 4' 8" are the same, then it follows that 4' 8" and 8' are as well. Actually, I don't believe that 2'8" and 4'8" are the same at all myself, especially if you are dealing with the same technology. Personally, I believe that a 60" large screen high definition television displaying a high definition 1080p slideshow is superior to a 1080p projector projected at identical dimensions. It then follows that as you increase the size of the projection with the attendant and necessary decrease in brightness and contrast, the larger projected image has less acuity and sharpness. The point is that a 60" large screen is quite large enough for 100 people to clearly see a very nice slideshow at 30'. If by preference you like it larger, dimmer and with less acuity then blowing it up to 8' with a projector is a valid choice. The only important thing is that you use what works best for your individual situation. Best regards, Lin

Hi, The only time PTE modifies an image in terms of visible quality is when you have the anti-shimmer or blur checked in Objects and Animations. If you display the image at original dimensions at 100% there is no modification at all. If you display fit to slide or cover slide, etc., and the display resolution is smaller in pixel dimensions than the original image, the image will be downsampled to fit that screen size. If the original image is smaller than the display resolution it will be upsampled. You have the option of either choosing fit to slide where the image fills the horizontal aspect of the display or cover slide where the image covers the vertical aspect of the display. You may also choose to type in the original dimensions of the image and when you have not altered the zoom in Objecta and Animations, the full original image is displayed with absolutely no alteration. If you have resampled your camera's capture to the display device's pixel dimensions in either horizontal or vertical aspect (or both depending on the display's aspect ratio) then by choosing either fit to slide or cover slide there would be no change at all from your original resample providing that the aspect ratio of your resample perfectly matched the display device. For example, if you crop your original capture to 1920 x 1080 and displayed this image on a wide screen 1080p television, neither fit to slide or cover slide would change the image in any way because the original crop and the display device would have identical pixel dimensions. Likewise were you to resample a 4:3 original from an Olympus 4/3rd capture to the display dimensions of a 4:3 monitor. In such case the "original" as far as PTE is concerned would be your resample. When displayed the "original" and the PTE displayed image would be virtually identical. In the case of the 1920 x1080 crop, had you resampled then cropped rather than simply cropped the original camera capture, the display by PTE would be identical in quality to your resample rather than to your original. Note the difference between "cropping" an original which leaves you with 100% original pixels but not original full content and resampling something like a 3:2 (typical dSLR capture aspect ratio) then cropping. PicturesToExe produces the finest image quality of "any" presentation slidshow software. In fact, it's one of the very few presentation slideshow products which "doesn't" necessarily change the image quality. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, Wind, Solar and Sea power are all potential candidates for furnishing electrical power for all nations and especially Sea power could be used in the U.K. Many years ago when I was 18 years old, I designed plans for power generation using tidal and wave power from coastal regions which could furnish sufficient power to run huge cities like Los Angeles, California. My ideas are only now being considered by "experts" in power generation. The sad thing is that systems exist today which could furnish "free" energy to the world, but I fear they will never see the light of day. Physicists agree that if "all" the energy in one cubic centimeter of "void" (space) could be converted to matter, the quantity of that matter would be greater than the total of all matter in the known universe! Ponder this - it's not an overstatement. Zero point energy systems exist today. I've seen some of them myself and they work! The issue is that for coal, oil, etc., to be replaced with free energy, millions of people around the world who make their livings in one or another way from these energy sources would be instantly unemployed. The fact is, however, that a "huge" amount of our income is spent on energy in one way or another. Subtract the cost of transportation fuel, heating, cooling, processing, etc., from our food supply and food would be dirt cheap. If the farmer didn't have to pay for fuel to run his equipment, the truck (lorry) driver didn't have to pay for fuel, we didn't have to pay for gasoline (petrol) to run our vehicles, we didn't have to pay for heating, cooling for our homes or the added cost of energy for production of goods, we could all live very cheaply. To make the transition to a free energy system, however, would be very difficult and trillions in currency would be at stake so it will not happen until we have run out of alternatives. It's interesting to me to see the dumb way automobile manufacturers are scrambling to make even dumber "hybrid" vehicles which use less fuel but cost more. Sure you get more miles per gallon of fuel, but there are large prices for charging the batteries and huge costs when they die. Then there is the issue of getting rid of all the lithium batteries. Why are they even considering a hybrid vehicle when it's very easy to run vehicles on straight water? We have had vehicles running on water for years now but that information is rarely allowed to "leak" to the public. The Japanese finally actually demonstrated an auto running entirely on water but the news was very quickly dropped and "buried" because if we converted rapidly to a non-polluting water driven engine, then oil companies would be quickly in big trouble and again, hundreds of thousands of people would be unemployed. I'm afraid it's a catch 22.... we simply can't get there from here.... Nice show by the way! Best regards, Lin

Hi José, It's a feature of the new version 6. Go to Objects and Animations Click on the image name in the Objects List to select it Click on the Adjust Image and Border button A new window with two tabs will appear Select the Border tab and click beside Enable Border and a checkmark will appear Set the width and color of the border you want then click O.K. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, Just a quick question? Why a 2 foot 8 inch diagonal tv monitor?? A "large screen" TV in my part of the world would be at least a 56" or possibly a 60" "diagonal" screen. What you describe (a 32 inch diagonal) is definitely too small to have any impact. That would be a large "monitor" display, not a large screen TV wouldn't it? Most of my business customers have 60" wide screen TV's set up in their larger conference rooms which will comfortably seat 100 people who are not complaining - LOL> Best regards, Lin

Hi Geoff, There may be, depending on exactly how you want to use this. If you could explain in a bit more detail perhaps I could make a suggestion. You can use version 6 beta and create a rectangular mask of a specific dimension with a specific radius on the corner. Then add a rectangle to the mask and add text to the rectangle. Or you could go to Photoshop, etc., and create a rectangle of a specific size and color, paste it on a transparency and use the rectangular marquee with a pre-set feather of a few pixels then erase only the corners which would leave you with a rounded corner rectangle which you could control the transparency of by using the eraser at less than 100%.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Bill, Yes, PTE is the product of Wnsoft, a Russian company headed by Igor Kokarev. I've never had the pleasure of visiting Russia, but would love to visit some day! A great weekend to you as well! Best regards, Lin

Hi Henri, I'll try to answer your questions. 1. No camera club - there are some, but I'm not a member of one though I am a professional photographer. My clients are both businessmen and artists. Many are owners of galleries. Some are fortune 50 clients (IBM, Hewlett-Packard, etc.). 2. I have used PTE with projectors including high resolution projectors, but I prefer the big screen display. The advantage of the big screen display is that it "can" be used either in darkness or in a lighted room. The same can't be said of the projector. The projector works fine; it's just not my preference nor the preference of most of my clients. 3. The size and weight varies among my customers. Typically, a 56 inch screen (142 cm) screen weight is about 87 pounds (39.46 kg) on the heavy side, to about 60 pounds on the light side. Different technologies (Plasma - heavier - LCD medium - LED light) have different weights. They are always wide screen - never 4:3 or 3:2 - and yes, I prefer 4:2 or 3:2 but unfortunately wide screens are wide screens with wide aspect ratios. 4. Sometimes a laptop and many times the client has their own system (desktop) already connected for display. 5. Yes, the sound output is very much equal to or better than from a projector. There is no question that a small projector and laptop combination is lighter than a big screen and easier for some to transport, especially where large SUV's, pickup trucks and vans are not common as in the U.K. and Europe. For my purpose it's a non issue. I can transport a big screen tv as easily as transporting a cup of tea. Most of those with whom I work have no problems at all transporting big screen tv's. I know how difficult it is for a private citizen to transport large, heavy items in many places in Europe and the UK. I have had the experience of having to transport 300 pound (136 kg) computer tape libraries to demo to clients in Germany, Italy, France, the U.K. and in Asia. We had much difficulty renting a van suitable for this purpose. Here, almost every household in my vicinity could do this easily with their private vehicles. It's not a question of which is better, it's a question of preference for me. I'm surprised that there are so many debates about it. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bill, It's difficult to say, but generally if you have the Deluxe version and you don't get a message telling you that you need to upgrade when you use the features of version 6 beta, that's probably not the reason. We do have a number of users who are using their MacIntosh with Bootcamp to run PTE right now, so it's not necessary to really worry about having to wait to buy a Mac. On the other hand, let's give the developer a chance to look at the situation and see if there isn't a solution to make your system work correctly with PTE right now. Igor is very busy right now with upgrading the forum, but he will look at the situation very soon and perhaps we will find a colution. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bill, As much as this may seem like a "bad thing" (not being able to create a Mac native output file), it may really be a good thing for solving both your issues. Actually, many of us have made native Mac output slideshows and posted links which have been seen by many MacIntosh users. The fact that the program works perfectly for nearly everyone means that the issue causing the AVI failure and failure to create the Mac native executable code are quite probably related and somehow are unique to your system. This may help the Wnsoft developer find an answer for you. I will inform Igor of this and I'm certain that we will find a solution. I'm also reasonably certain that these seemingly unrelated issues are related and probably caused by the same gremlin. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jeff, I'm ashamed to tell you about the jury-rigged setup I have for recording, but here goes my story.... I was searching for a way to improve the sound quality and get a decent recording. The sound on my earlier tutorials was quite inconsistent so I went out and purchased an expensive directional microphone and discovered that to use it with my computer I had to have a preamp. I bought a preamp but never could get decent sound. It was either hum or squawk or a combination so after trying a few combination's I ended up with a $4.00 Radio Shack computer microphone. It's just a little condenser type mike with a push button for on and off. I taped it to an old headset my wife used for hands-free telephone work. The headset has a "stalk" with its own microphone, but I didn't have an adapter jack to try to convert it for the computer so I just used Scotch tape to affix the little Radio Shack mike to the stalk. It's adjustable so I can position it in such a way that I turn it "backward" so that I'm speaking to the back of the mike to avoid "plosive" sounds. I use an inexpensive little piece of software called Screen Recorder Gold which you can purchase here: http://www.capture-screen.com/ I use a DivX Mpeg 4 fast motion codec and it seems to work out pretty well for most of my tutorials now. I'm absolutely certain there is a "much" better and more professional way to do it, but I just gave up trying to find an ideal solution. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, If all you want to do is batch resize, Ken told me about a nifty little program which works like a charm. I think he will link you to it in a few minutes... Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, Irfanview can batch resize just as it does batch rename and batch file conversions. Just click on the "Batch Conversion" button, choose an output format then use the Advanced features to resize, crop, etc. There is absolutely no software more versatile at batch resizing than Irfanview, you just need to learn how to use it. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, Thanks much for the detailed feedback! They are a delight to watch and film. They seem to have little fear of people, probably because of the constant exposure at their young age to a stream of visitors to the summit. Because there is a paved road running all the way to 14,130 feet elevation, it's possible for people who would not normally be able to handle the extreme elevation to visit and even walk up a relatively easy and short trail to the 14,268 foot peak. Fortunately, I live at a reasonably high elevation (around 6,000 feet) and spend a good deal of time in elevations of the 12,000 - 13,000 foot range so am acclimated enough to make five or ten mile hikes and still carry my equipment without undue stress. I was able to get within about 100 feet of these little guys and their watchful mommy. I try not to get too close because the ewes are quite protective and one doesn't want to be on the receiving end of a lesson from those sharp horns and powerful bodies. As long as I'm still and as unobtrusive as possible, I'm usually able to shoot at will. F16 and a stabilized 80-400 lens helps a lot with the DOF and sharpness as does the 1.7x crop on my Sigma dSLR's which I used for these shots. What amazes me almost as much as the tenacity of these creatures in extreme adverse weather is the fact that every summer there are beautiful wildflowers and succulents at this extreme altitude. The ones on the peak which I photographed don't last long before the extreme cold and frequent snows even in the summer months take their toll. I love watching the Pica which almost never seem to stop for more than a couple seconds, usually to vocalize. They spend all their waking hours gathering vegetation for the long winter. In their burrows one sometimes finds a huge hay bale sized cache of stored vegetation. This is an amazing feat for such a tiny little rodent. The Marmots seem to spend more time sunning themselves on rocks, but apparently find sufficient food stores to last them through the long winter months as well. I can fully understand exposing your entire supply of film on these cute little kids. I've finally learned to carry several multi-gigabyte CF cards in my shirt pocket because I've done the same thing with my digital media. When a good photo opportunity presents itself, it's hard to stop shooting isn't it? Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, The easiest way to do this is to take a solid color rectangle (whichever color you want as a border) and create a simple mask by copy paste onto a transparency in Photoshop, etc., Then select a rectangle of the aspect ratio of your images in portrait mode (such as 3:2, 4:3) and hit the delete key. This will leave you with a black border with the center portion cut out. You then use this image on the layer above your slides as a "frame" which will prevent anything beyond what is seen through the cut-out from displaying regardless of whether you pan or zoom the image. Here is a link to a black one I created for you. Just place it under the slide in the Objects List. http://www.learntoma...angle32mask.png Best regards, Lin