Lin Evans

Hi Mark, The nice thing about PTE is that it offers not only the ability to create amazing animations but also the finest image quality and smoothest transitions possible today. From the perspective of animation versus video; it would be very difficult with a video camera to capture the Earth rotating around the Sun or even to travel to places you may have a photo of to capture a waterfall or snow in a winter scene inside a snow-globe, etc. So though there is certainly a place for using a video camera, for some there is also a place for creating animations from still images too. PTE offers the best of both worlds and soon will also offer those who wish to include video in their presentations that option as well. Of course Proshow also allows the creation of a simple slideshow with executable output and simple fade transitions. The only relevant differences in this respect between PTE and Proshow is, in my opinion, the quality of the output. Hardware rendering gives PTE a decided edge in this respect, especially if the highest resolution monitors and displays are being used. It's a bit difficult to see the true advantages of PTE over Proshow and most other presentation slideshow software at 1024x768, but once you've seen both at WQXGA resolution (2560×1600 pixels) the differences are immediate and convincing. So PTE offers you and others who only want a great slideshow with fade transitions and first class image quality the zenith of performance. At the same time it offers those who wish to experiment with animation and special effects a splendid tool for that purpose as well. Best regards, Lin

A while back I created a PTE demo show for testing video cards, etc., which was a 100 meg download. The show contains 3D transforms, OOB (out of bounds) creations, reflections, water animations, snow animations, an unusually animated Panos FX "watch," mask animations, Earth rotating on its own axis around rotating Sun, etc. The show requires sufficient resources to tax less than optimal video cards so I suggested that only those with excellent resources try to run it. So that others can see some of what PTE is capable of, I created an MP4 and uploaded a lower resolution version to Vimeo. Of course it's not nearly as smooth as a Windows or Mac executable, but it is better than I expected on Vimeo. It can be seen here: http://vimeo.com/6844405 Best regards, Lin

Though it is possible to select multiple keyframes, the message above does say" select a keyframe," (not select keyframes) so the intent is not to create multiple keyframes simultaneously. You only see a timeline for one object at a time. The blue "arrow" marker stays when you create a keyframe then select a second object, so you may once again click on the "Create a New Keyframe Here" if you wish to create a keyframe for the second object at the identical time. It probably wouldn't be helpful, or would at least possibly be confusing to most to create multiple keyframes for multiple objects simultaneously, so I'm assuming that you would like the "Create a New Keyframe Here" message to not be available by either being greyed our or invisible when multiple keyframes are selected? The purpose of allowing multiple keyframes to be selected is either for deletion or to copy them as far as I know. Best regards, Lin

Hi, I'm not clear either. On the timeline printed on any Keyframe itself is the absolute time relative to the zero start point of slide one. On the little square marked "keyframe time" found when the Animation tab is selected, is the time relative to the start of the presently selected slide in 1/1000th's of a second. So you have visible at any time both the time relative to the beginning of your slideshow and the time relative to the beginning of the presently selected slide. Best regards, Lin

Hi, What "differences" are you seeing between preview and exe file? There "shouldn't" be any difference because the preview requires creating a temporary exe file which "should" be identical to what you see after the permanent exe is created. There could be a difference between the mini-viewer and exe file depending on certain circumstances but it's really strange to see a difference between the preview and executable. Are you hearing synchronization issues with sound on executables or on AVI, Mpeg II or MP4 between different PC's? Best regards, Lin

Hi Reinhard, Click on the Objects and Animations, select the Properties Tab, then click on the slide in the Objects List. You will then see a tab which says "Adjust Image and Border." Click on this tab and uncheck "Enable Border" on the Border Tab. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, The AVI uses a DivX Mpeg 4 Fast Motion video codec. If that codec isn't resident on your Mac, it may not play the video. Unfortunately, I don't know whether that codec is or is not available for certain QuickTime versions for the Mac so perhaps Henri can help you with what he has available. It is apparently available here: http://www.pure-mac.com/video.html#divxcodec Best regards, Lin

Hi Henri, Thanks! It's great to hear that the AVI will play well with Quicktime for Mac! My hat thanks you too! It's a Stetson Crushable Wool type which I wear because the brim is very soft and doesn't interfere with my dSLR's viewfinder when photographing wildlife. We have strong winds in the Colorado mountains and the "chin strap" helps keep my hat from blowing away down the side of a mountain when doing high altitude photography. I button the bottom of the leather strap inside my top shirt or jacket button and even if the wind blows my hat off, it doesn't blow it away - LOL. In earlier years when we still had horses and cattle, it helped keep my head warm and dry even when herding cattle in blizzard conditions. You can order them from Stetson here: Several models available: http://www.stetsonhat.com/collections.php?prod_id=36 Best regards, Lin

Hi Rob, I'm afraid you've run afoul of the issues of a "smart" machine (computer) and "dumb" machine (DVD Player). Executable files can be very interactive in that you have controls such as the keyboard and mouse which send "interrupts" to the operating system which can turn on and off various functions in real time. DVD's and CD's have very little interactive capabilities, primarily because they are "canned" programs. Even when you use a computer and attached DVD player to play a DVD, you can't just send an interrupt via this "canned" type program which will control actions. The bottom line is that if you want to furnish the code to your clients via DVD, to play on a computer, then you don't want to actually create a DVD show, but rather copy the executable show to the DVD and either play it via the "autorun.inf" file or better yet a batch file to copy the slideshow to the user's hard drive and run it from there. This way your client will have complete control over the slideshow via the navigation bar, etc. Unfortunately, there is no way to really control a DVD slideshow which is really nothing more than an executable slideshow converted to a video. So just use some software such as "Copy To DVD" to copy your executable slideshow to DVD or CD media where it can be run as an executable program. Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, I emailed you examples which show the issue with lowercase "x" in Times New Roman font. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mary, I'm happy to hear that you found it useful. It isn't really detailed, but does explain the basics of the choices and a few things people might want to do with the features. I moved my reflections template and my other one for video simulation under my name here: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10658 Hopefully, this one is good. I can download from it so it seems to work from the above link. Let me know if it doesn't work for you and I'll re-post. Best regards, Lin

Hi Xaver, I just tested the lower case X in beta 16, 15 and 14 and each have the "crooked" small X, but not for the "bold" - only for normal X. I also checked 5.6 and there it looks normal. So "some" characters are not being reproduced faithfully while other are. Very strange. There must be a flaw in the vector math somewhere.... Lin

Hi Xaver, Really strange - it doesn't look that way on any of my three systems. Lin

Hi Xaver, That's strange - it looks perfectly normal in my v6.0 Beta here: Lin

Hi David, You may also want to download a new AVI tutorial I just posted on the 3D Transform which explains its use and some of the features... You can find it in the Frequently Asked Questions section on the PTE Made Easy series found in the sub heading of Tutorials. It will be in the last position among the numerous tutorials in the PTE For Smarties series. Lin

Hi Folks, I just added a new tutorial on 3D Transform to the PTE Made Easy (PTE For Smarties) section in the Tutorial forum here: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7901 It's in the last position among the tutorial linked there. This reminder will be removed in a couple weeks..... The tutorial will show some of the reasons for the 3D Transform feature and explain the use. Lin

Hi Eric, Yes, though you can probably get decent results with just the better video card with a portable, it's actually not PTE which is driving the need for increased performance, but rather the operating system. If you can find an older model laptop which can use XP rather than Vista, you don't need the additional RAM and 2 gigabytes will do fine. That's a huge savings right there. The better video card which would be ideal for PTE is only an additional $250 and with inexpensive external hard disks available (a gigabyte fast USB for about $110 here in the states) there really is no need to buy more than the 250 gig standard drive. The better display resolution is probably a must so if one could find an XP system rather than a Vista system the price would be well within reason. Vista is a huge resource hog. Maybe Windows 7 will be less - it remains to be seen. It's also quite possible that not everyone really wants to take advantage of the potential for video drop-in and for the very complex and resource heavy graphics possible with PTE. It's certainly "possible" to have beautiful slideshows without using huge amounts of resources, but definitely the "cube" would be a less expensive way to go than a top-end gaming laptop. It's very easy to get $7,000 into a really top-end gaming laptop. These things weigh over 20 pounds and are anything but convenient as "portable" machines. Someday, these powerful laptops will be very reasonably priced, but right now the manufacturer's know that they can get these ridiculous prices because "some" people will pay to have to have the latest and greatest. Enough, I suppose, to make it feasible to build these monster systems and call them "laptops." The important thing for someone who is contemplating purchasing a laptop to run and demo PTE, is to have sufficient power to handle 1080p with graphics. Realistically, the video card is the most important piece of the puzzle. Actually, for use in the home, it's quite possible to put a small desktop system together which doesn't take up much room at all. My Dell 530 is only 6.5 x 14 x 16 inches. I was able to shoehorn a 750w power supply into it and add an nVidia GeForce 8800 GT card which is more powerful than about any noteook video card and which will play any PTE Graphics or video. The power supply cost me less that $120 and the video card can be had for about $100.00 right now. Couple that with perhaps a 17" flat screen display and you have a pretty compact system which you can put XP on for about $1200 with a 500 gig HD. It will play virtually "anything" you throw at it and doesn't take up much desktop space. The CPU can set on the floor under your desk and the total footprint for the monitor and keyboard is only 20 inches x 16 inches. Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, The processor itself is actually "cheaper" than earlier models of quad core, etc., Intel, but how much improvement it will offer heavily animated PTE shows, if at all, is still to be determined. Dell jumped the gun on the Intel non-disclosure agreement and began promoting it on their web site, but what really gets expensive is the addition of a decent video card, the faster processor and RAM. Starting with Dell's Alienware $1499 base price, it gets expensive quickly. The top of the line nVidia m280 with one gigabyte video ram (which has about the same video performance as an nVidia 8800 GT on a desktop). The 15" version of the Alienware M15x only allows the nVidia GeForce GTX 260m as a top of line video card. It has an acceptable 810 rating which is less powerful than a GeForce desktop 8800 GT, but still plenty to run probably any PTE graphic combo smoothly. This adds $250 to the base price. Add the Intel i7 920xm 2GHz (3.06 in turbo mode) processor and that a whopping $950 addition. Add the 1920x180 WLED screen to get 1080p and that adds $150. The system comes with Vista Home Edition 64 bit. If you want to upgrade it can cost as much as an additional $150. The system comes with medium performance 3 gig RAM, but with Vista you really need fast RAM and more of it. Most would agree that 8 meg of RAM is ideal. Add the additional fast RAM to get 8 Gig of Dual Channel DDR3 1333 Mhz and that adds another $800. Upgrade the 250 Gig HD to 500 Gigabytes and that adds $75. Want a BluRay player to play those h.264 mp4's? Then add another $150. Want a BluRay Burner instead of just a reader? Then add another $250. Now we are at the best part of $4000 instead of the $1499 for the base system. The bottom line is that if you want the bells and whistles it's not going to be cheap - and you still have a system which will perform about like a relatively inexpensive desktop with a really good high-end video card such as an nVidia GeForce GTX 285 at 1/3 the price. Portable high-end computing is way expensive, no matter how you look at it. Best regards, Lin

Hi, Unfortunately, five images at three frames per second won't give too much of a video type effect regardless of how you attempt to do it. You can use a "Quick - No Transition," put them in as individual slides at about 33ms each (that equates to about three frames per second). The other way would be to stack them as objects and use the opacity setting and keyframes to display each sequentially. You do this by setting the opacity on the first slide (first keyframe) to 100. At 29ms add another keyframe also set to 100. At 33 ms add a third set to zero. For the second object, set the opacity to zero at the start with another keyframe at 29ms to zero and a third at 33ms point set to 100% (this keeps the slide from fading in slowly over the first 29ms) The other three slides should be set to zero at the beginning with a second keyframe also set to zero until you want them to begin fading in. Then add a keyframe at the point where you want them to fade in fully set to 100 percent. This is how you can simulate a frame by frame play using opacity. Best regards, Lin

You may also want to consider my template here: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=10658 It's being expanded to include more time. It's not for long clips, but works very well for short duration (up to about 30 seconds) video using decompiled frames. The disadvantage is system resources. The advantage over putting decompiled frames into individual slide slots is versatility and being able to control size, placement, etc., because the frames are made a child of a rectangle which can be controlled as any other object. Lin

Hi David, I see little difference in "most" manufacturer's RAW converters and ARC. Adobe does a pretty good job with the majority, but in some cases such as Sigma, the manufacturer's RAW converter has features which ARC doesn't which can be very useful. Of course "quality" is most important and where there is a difference, I'll always choose quality over convenience, but when you are converting hundreds of photos and tweaking them in Photoshop as I often must do, convenience becomes fairly important. The install default on CS4 Extended includes Adobe Media Player, so if you don't have it, undoubtedly you did a "custom install" rather than the default. Adobe Media Player screwed up the installation on all three of my working systems, and it was only after some lengthy Adobe Forum inquiries when someone suggested doing the custom install and omitting Media Player that I was able to get it to install. Best regards, Lin

Hi Matthias, I have an AVI tutorial on the waterfall animation creation, along with a PNG file available so you can create both waterfall and snow animations. Essentially, these involve using a Photoshop created PNG file or sometimes files which are moved between a background jpg and a PNG duplicate of that background with a transparent layer and transparent "cut-out" areas to show the movement. The PNG "snow" or "water" file is moved about via keyframes and shows through in the areas of transparency (for the water) and over the background with sometimes some transparency for the earth (ground) areas and sometimes not depending on conditions for snow. Sometimes the same PNG file is used multiple times within the same image to achieve different snow conditions, depth, texture and position. You can download the waterfall sample here: (look among the samples - I think # 11) http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7901 Best regards, Lin

Hi Mary, There is no option to apply a universal border across multiple images - it's handled image by image. There is a probably a reason for this from a programming perspective. Along with the new border feature, there is the ability to change the "canvas" size. One can automatically then apply the new border feature to a totally different portion of the image as if you had cropped the image before loading. By using the "Canvas Size" you can absolutely select any portion of your image as the entire image and surround it with the border. This is useful for a variety of reasons because it allows real-time cropping and a border to fit as well. If the border were applied universally, then it would require that the program look at each individual image which may or may not have been "cropped" via the "Canvas Size" feature in order to make a proper fit. Perhaps in a later version it might be possible to have an "either/or" type selection. It is easier to universally apply a border created as a PNG in Photoshop, etc., until you consider that everyone may not be displaying "all" their images with a similar size or aspect ratio depending on individual preferences. The way it is now is much more "versatile" even if problematic from a convenience perspective. Best regards, Lin

This is a simple 3D Transform with a "stack" of images which "fall" forward one at a time. The purpose is to demonstrate how our vision handles perspective relative to our position viz the images. Run the zipped executable and position yourself to the far left of your display. As the images fall forward, look at the left and right corners, specifically the "triangls" created by the perspective. When you look from the left side of your display, the left corner seems longer than the right corner. When your view is from dead center, it the two appear symmetrical. When you view from the far right, the right corner seems longer and the left corner shorter. In reality, they are exactly the same, but our viewing position creates the illusion of the difference. This can give you an idea of the issues involved in the development of the 3D Transform feature of PTE and why it took a good deal of time for the programming of this feature so that we would have similar views on both the preview and mini-viewer, etc. http://www.learntoma...tackfalling.zip (about 15.5 meg) Best regards, Lin

Hi David, Actually, my report on the cause for the inability to load CS4 may have been lost in the shuffle. The reason it would not load on any of my systems was the Adobe Media Player which is a non-necessary add-on which Adobe elected to install as a default. For whatever reason, on all three systems (all with Windows XP home edition - two with SP3 and one with SP2) the only way to get the program to install was to do it manually and not select Adobe Media Player for installation. After that the installations went smoothly. The graphics drivers were fine on all three systems. Two were nVidia cards (8800 GT, 8600 GT OC) and one was a 3D Labs AGP Wildcat VP880 Pro. The older Wildcat doesn't support Open GL with present drivers and since the company was purchased by Creative Labs and they no longer support it, apparently won't support the 3D functionality of CS4. Most camera companies actually do have very good RAW converters. Sigma makes an excellent one, Cannon's is excellent as is Olympus and Nikon's. I can't speak for Pentax or Sony, but the ones I have for Sigma, Canon, Olympus and Nikon are all fine. The reason for the complaint about Adobe and RAW converters and my only reason for actually using the ARC converter is convenience. It's nice to be able to simply click on a RAW file in Photoshop and work from that point through the conversion and various settings to whatever is necessary for the final product without switching from one software to another. Other than convenience, I have no complaints about the RAW converters for my cameras from the manufacturers. Best regards, Lin