Lin Evans

Hi David, First go to Project Options, Main Tab, and uncheck "Synchronize Music and Slides". Next, from the Main Screen go to the slide where you want the music to begin and click on this slide. Next click on "Customize Slide" then click on the "Music" Tab. Put a check beside "Play New Background Music (file) Click on "Add Music" then navigate to the music file and click on it. Next open "Customize Slide" for each subsequent slide where you want the music to continue to play and "UNCHECK" "Play New Background Music". When you come to the slide where you want new music to start, place a check beside "Play New Background Music (file) then click on "Add Music" and navigate to the music file you want to begin at that slide and double click to enter it. Continue in this way for subsequent slides. You "must" uncheck "Play New Background Music (file) for each slide where you want the music to continue or the same selection will begin again for each slide. The other way to do this is to go into Audacity or some other audio editor and create a single MP3 by combining multiple songs. Then you can add them to the Project Options via the Music tab and adjust the slide display time accordingly. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gilio, I very much enjoyed the images, but like other readers have some questions. Did you get some of the images from a hang glider? The boat which was dredging, was it removing sand to make a channel for deeper water access? What is the eventual purpose of the construction? Do the wind machines furnish all power for the site? Though you probably said in the text where this is being built, I couldn't translate quickly so perhaps you could just comment here and answer the questions of those who have watched rather than re-make the slideshow. Those were very nice captures, by the way. Best regards, Lin

Note that I've made some additional comments and posted one additional link in the original post. I suspect that the main point was missed which was the ability to animate a non-linear rotation with PTE. The bubble entering the glass distorts its shape to fit the narrow glass bottle (vase) neck while continuing to rotate. This is something not possible to do by the competition - LOL. Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, Although I haven't used the 5D Mk II myself yet, beginning with the 40D Canon greatly improved the issue of dust prevention on the sensor. One almost never sees a late model Canon with sensor dust issues these days. There are special anti-dust coatings on the AA filter (which is bonded to the sensor) and dust spots on the images are mostly a thing of the past. It "definitely" was a problem in early days and Canon was late to the party with methods of preventing this problem. Olympus solved it years ago by not only "vibrating" the sensor to literally shake dust off, but with a simple "sticky tape" dust collection process. I've never seen a single dust spot on my Olympus E3 and rarely seen anything on my 40D. On my earlier Canon equipment it was a serious issue indeed! But in answer to your question, if there were dust spots it would require mapping software to rempve the dust frame by frame. This type software is available for video, but rarely needed today. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, Producer and Gold use the common practice of CPU rather than GPU (Video Card - hardware rendering) so when attempting to pan higher resolution images the movement is usually jerky and is greatly affected by whatever else the CPU might be doing. Also, in order to render images they do so at lower resolutions then uprez to get to final display resolutions which softens the image. The bottom line is that their "engine" simply is not up to the demands of the combination of high resolution and superb image quality like PTE. So, in answer to your question, nothing has changed. When PTE allows video clip drop-in, the quality of the video will be as good as the original. If it is produced from a camera which supports 1080p (1920x1080) then that's the quality which it will be displayed at. The other, in my opinion, great advantage of PTE is that the video will be treated like any other "object" so that all the great features which we have to manipulate objects will be available to manipulate the video clip. In my opinion, this will be far superior to the way it's implemented by the competition. Best regards, Lin

Nah.. that Pica's cousin, the rabbit, has been blowing these bubbles all morning. He's totally used to the tiny popping when they hit the rocks. The Pica (commonly called "rock rabbit" around here) is about the size of a large mouse or fat chipmunk. This one was about three inches long, spends all his available time storing up vegetation for the winter and almost never sits still for more than a couple seconds. He lives above 12,000 feet and has a unique vocalization. His closest relative is a rabbit. In some places they get larger, up to about 8 or 10 inches, but in the high country of Rocky Mountain National Park they are rarely over 5 inches long. Lin

LOL - Suck & Pop, done... Lin

Hi John, LOL - O.K., done.... Lin

How to fit a "bubble" into a bottle with a bottle neck smaller than the bubble - hmmm (Just a little fun thing).... A few things to observe. Three layers of "depth" or dimensionality for bubbles. Notice that some bubbles pass behind the "pica" (Colorado Rock Rabbit), some pass in front, while the bubble which is "captured" by the vase is a third dimension and enters the bottle itself. The more important thing to observe is accomplished via a technique that the competition can't duplicate. The bubble entering the vase continues to rotate while the shape is distorted to fit the neck of the slender glass vase. Other observations are that the bubbles when rotating do not reflect reality. In a true representation, the light source reflections would not rotate with the bubble. Creating a realistic bubble rotation is actually quite easy in PTE but I didn't do it because it's easier to see the rotation of the bubble inside the glass when the white "reflections" rotate as well. For those who would like to see a true rotational representation compared with the one used in this little animation, click the second link below: http://www.learntoma...ple/captive.zip http://www.learntoma...ruerotation.zip Lin

Hi David, The reason I posted was that you put "thoroughly" in all caps about the Sigma, but didn't mention even in lower case thoroughly researching the other options. This leads one to think that there might be something about the Sigma which you believe to be somehow in need of more thorough research than the others. My reply was simply to let you know that research can start here with someone who "thoroughly" understands CFA as well as Foveon technology including the strengths and weaknesses of each. There is lots of "misinformation" floating around the web by people with a strong bias against Sigma. This is primarily based on lack of experience with the technology and the belief that the term "megapixels" in terms of image output dimensions is the be all, end all, which determines image quality and enlargeability. Nothing could be further from the truth. Many dismiss the Foveon because they hear 3.5 megapixels or 4.7 megapixels and believe that this means yesterday's technology. Or, conversely, they may hear someone say that the SD14, DP1 or DP2 are 14 megapixel cameras and take issue because the output file size is 4.7 megapixels. The bottom line is that using output file size as synonymous with optical "resolution" is totally wrong. Resolution is a measurement of, in the relevant sense, how many lines vertically and horizontally can be discerned at a particular point on the target from a capture made from a specific distance of a standardized resolution chart. Generally these charts only give black and white resolution, but there are alternative charts made which also give color resolution. Researching Foveon technology can be very deceptive for an amateur photographer or for someone not thoroughly schooled in both CFA and Foveon image acquisition technology. So telling somone to "THOROUGHLY" research a particular technology, without knowing that person's familiarity with research techniques and where to fine accurate and truthful information is a recipe for disaster. I just want to be certain that no viable option for Mike or anyone else who wants to consider a particular camera is overlooked because of faulty information found on the web. There are numerous reviews which give Sigma cameras bad press because the reviewer hadn't a clue how to either use the camera or properly convert the RAW data. A misunderstood technology and bias based on the major players who all use CFA technology can often lead to very incorrect conclusions. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, The inventor of the Foveon X3 technology was a personal friend, and I'm "intimately" familiar with things Foveon and Sigma. If there is "anything" you or Mike want to know about these cameras or the technology, just ask and I will be more than happy to tell you the excellent, the good, the bad and the ugly. I've been using Sigma X3 cameras since they were introduced and for landscapes with a tripod and, they produce absolutely stellar results. As I mentioned earlier, I wouldn't recommend them for wildlife or sports even though I've made award winning wildlife photos with them. The reason is that the buffer capacity and shot to shot time is problematic compared to my other dSLR's. But the image quality they produce is, in my opinion, unparalleled. If I were "only" shooting portraits or landscapes and had to watch my budget, my first choice today would be the little Sigma DP2. This camera is shirt pocket size but has the same size sensor as used in the SD14 which produces an amazing 4.7 megapixel output capture obtained with 14 megapixels of data capturing red, blue and green independently at each pixel location. So unlike a 4.7 megapixel bayer type camera which interpolates red and blue, the X3 technology captures and uninterpolated 4.7 megapixel image comprised of 4.7 megapixels of red, 4.7 megapixels of blue and 4.7 megapixels of green. The measured resolution for black and white is approximately the same as a 10 megapixel conventional dSLR using bayer CFA technology. The measured resolution for color is equal for each of RBG and superior to even the 12 megapixel Canon 5D in comparison testing by Mike Chaney, the developer of Qimage Pro. The issue with conventional CFA technology (everything except Sigma/Foveon) is that green has decent resolution and the resolution for other colors varies tremendously with red being quite poor. This is primarily evident when one views captures made side by side with the X3 and conventional cameras using identical settings. The differences are quite apparent with certain colors. Also the Sigma/Foveon uses no anti aliasing filter so there is no "mush" in background vegetation for landscapes. Because of the lack of "mush" introduced at the Nyquist boundaries, the files interpolate much better than CFA equivalent captures. This means that you can successfully enlarge a Foveon capture and print at sizes where 12 megapixel CFA images begin to fall apart. It's difficult for people to grasp this until they examine one of the huge prints made from the relatively tiny 4.7 megapixel output files. As I said, for the uninitiated and casual photographer, I only recommend these for portrait or landscape work because there are plenty of decent dSLR's which have better burst, better high ISO, faster shot to shot times and essentially are more useful for general photography. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, Yes the 300s is "the latest version of the D300." I still love the D300and right now there are great price breaks on it viz the 300s. On theother hand, if you want video with your dSLR, then the 300s would bethe obvious choice, but really the Canon 5D Mark II has higher resolution video for whatever that's worth to one. Even though I've sold off many of my dSLR's, I still have a Canon 1D, a Nikon D2XS, an Olympus E3, a Sigma SD10 and SD14, a Canon 40D, CanonD30 and Canon 10D. The new batch are great cameras with outstanding performance so it would be difficult to not find any of them suitable. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, Sorry for the confusion - that's my fault for answering Eric in his post. Pressed wrong button I think! It's corrected now.. That was actually my reply to Eric. I've made my living for many years as a photographer and like some collect stamps or coins, I have collected tools and particularly cameras. During the good years my wife and I did quite well and did invest a lot of capital in lenses, camera bodies and photography peripherals. When times got tough in the last few years I sold the majority of my professional camera bodies and expensive lenses. Believe me, in terms of investments they were a huge loss - LOL. The Canon 1DS which I paid $8,000 for just a few years ago sold for $2000. Lenses fared a bit better because the good ones hold about 70% of their value while camera bodies rapidly depreciate. The Canon 40D which I believe I paid around $1400 for a short time ago is now worth perhaps $500. The Canon 1D which I paid $5700 for is now probably worth maybe $1,000. My first six megapixel pro-body dSLR was a Kodak DCS 460 which in early 1995 sold for almost $30,000. Fortunately, I only kept it less than a year and recovered about 90% of my investment - LOL. Today, if you can find one in mint condition, it can be had for around $300. If you really want a good investment, buy vintage automobiles. A McLaren F1 which originally sold for variously two to four million is now worth double that! Now that's an investment. Camera bodies? Not so much.... So don't be envious, I would dearly love to have half of what I've spent on camera bodies right now. Maybe I could pay my mortgage..... Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, As a wildlife photographer these days (I formerly made my living photographing fine art) I can give you some hints about the advantages and disadvantages of each system. Essentially there are a range of so called "crop factor" cameras ranging from the 2X factor of the 4/3 (Olympus) dSLR's to the 1.7x of Sigma, the 1.6x and 1.27x of Canon and the 1.5x of Nikon. Then we have the full frame models by Canon, Nikon and Sony. The advantage really goes to the crop factor cameras for the majority of photographers who must carry their equipment literally on their backs into remote and often physically difficult terrain. The essence is that the crop factor systems have greater pixel density in general, so that they paint the subject with more resolution than most of the full frame systems. Let's look at this quickly. For most serious wildlife you will be needing somewhere between 600mm and 800mm focal length. To get the full pixel density (vesting the full resolution) on a 2x crop means that a 400mm lens gives the Olympus dSLR the same as one of the so called full frame (24mmx36mm sensor) with an 800mm lens. Add a 1.4x teleconverter and you are up to 1120 mm with the Olympus versus 560mm with the full frame sensor. 560 mm is still quite short for many serious wildlife photographers. Yes, the full frame gives a bit better image quality at 560 than the Olympus at 1120, but if you want enlargement, the 2X still way outperforms the full frame. I took the extreme example to demonstrate this principle. If you crop a full frame 24 megapixel capture to the 2X crop (frame content) of the Olympus, you have only 6 megapixels painting that subject. This may seem odd because most people intuitively think that you would have 12 megapixels (half of 24) but indeed you only have 6. So your 24 megapixel full frame camera using the identical lens with the image cropped to 2X gives you a whopping 6 megapixels. To get the same number of megapixels painting the frame as with the crop factor Olympus, you must go to much longer, heavier and incredibly more expensive lenses. Now let's look at the Canon 1.6x crop factor sensors versus the full frame. The effective focal length for a 400 mm lens becomes 640mm. When you crop the 24mm full frame to the 1.6x factor you loose 60% of your pixels. This means your 24 megapixel full frame becomes a 10 megapixel (24mp x.4 = 10mp). So if you are using a 15 megapixel Canon 50D, you have an additional five megapixels painting the subject with the identical lens. Now let's look at the Nikon 1.5x crop. So cropping the 24 megapixel full frame to the 1.5x crop paints a 12 megapixel subject. This, in effect, is virtually identical to what I believe is the "best" of the Nikon values for the wildlife photographer, the newest version of the Nikon D300. When you look at costs, the least expensive of the full frame models is about $2500 from a legitimate dealer. Nikon D700 prices are very similar or perhaps a hundred dollars or so more expensive. Nikon D300 prices are around $1500 on average right now (USD). I have purposely omitted the pro models such as the Canon 1D Mark III and Nikon D2XS, etc., because they are around $4,000 or so. I've also excluded the Sigma 1.7x dSLR's because even though I often use one of these myself, they are not nearly as well suited for the wildlife shooter. The shot to shot time is low, the high ISO is mediocre and lighting needs to be very good to make them shine. So for Wildlife, my opinion is that your are better off with something like the Nikon D300 (my first choice) or the Canon D50 (my second choice). The Olympus E3 is quite good, but not quite a good an image with slightly less high ISO and more expensive lens choices. The Olympus has in-body stabilization (important when hand-holding) but this is somewhat offset by better high ISO performance on the Nikon and Canon which "neither" have in-body stabilization. In any event, you will probably want to purchase a stabilized lens for either the Nikon or Canon. Now for landscapes, the Canon 5D Mark II and the Nikon D700 are extremely good. But if you purchase one of these, be prepared to spend "lots" of money for a good wide angle lens. These cameras simply don't function well with even some of the very expensive wide angle lenses. There is chromatic aberration in the periphery of images and it takes a really "top notch" (read expensive) lens to give you excellent, chromatic aberration free and edge softness free images at wide angles. Frankly, if I were "only" shooting wide angle and landscapes, I would be inclined to look long and hard at a Sigma SD14 or even one of the tiny Sigma DP1 or DP2 models. They take superb landscape images. I have displayed some of my images at Photokina and at the PMA (Photographic Marketing Association) shows (Las Vegas, NV and Orlando, FL) which were printed at A0 and larger sizes from the Sigma 4.7 megapixel X3 captures which were every bit as good as images printed from Nikon D2XS 12 megapixel captures! So what you must do is decide how much you will shoot wildlife, how much you will shoot landscapes and architecture and how much you can spend for camera body and lenses. Note: The "crop factors" are always percentage "approximations" so the amount of relative "megapixels" is a close "estimate" and not a mathematically "precise" number, but it will be close enough to give you a very good idea of the relevant differences. Here are some quick figures for those who want to do their own math: Full Frame 24x36mm sensor = 864 sq mm of sensor surface Canon so called 1.3x crop sensor (APS H) = 548 sq mm Nikon so called 1.5x crop sensor = 370 sq mm Canon so called 1.6x crop sensor = 329 sq mm Sigma so called 1.7x crop senor = 286 sq mm Olympus 4/3 so called 2x crop sensor = 225 sq mm To compare let's use an example. 864mm is to 1 as 329mm is to x Solving for x gives us 329/864 = .3807 or converting to a percentage - 38 percent. This means the Canon 1.6x crop factor actually has 38 percent of the area of the full frame sensor. So to reduce the image acquired by the full frame sensor to that of the Canon 1.6x crop we loose 62 percent. So 24 megapixels times .38 equals 9.2 megapixels. The full frame when cropped to the identical frame content of the 1.6x Canon give you 9.2 million pixels painting the image. You can use the above accurate sensor area to determine how your full frame sensor might perform with an identical lens versus a crop sensor for telephoto use. So which is the better instrument for the task depends primarily on your circumstances and subject matter. Best regards, Lin

LOL - Maybe if someone posted pictures of that Colorado Driftwood it would spark another fire? Nah.... Lin

Hi Dave, The way we have handled this is to create tutorials and place them in the Tutorials and Articles section of the forum. For example, the "how to rotate" has been pretty thoroughly covered in my PTE Made Easy series, along with a number of other "How to" categories. Actually, I couldn't imagine anyone who had actually looked at the series having any problems rotating one object around another. The AVI tutorials take the user from the very simple "on-center axis" rotations through rotating an object in a circle around the screen and even show how to make the object stay in one orientation while following a 360 degree circular orbit around the screen. This is followed by a demo of multiple objects rotating around a central object - all of which the user should be able to do after watching the tutorials. Following the advance tutorials, the "Uber Rotation" tutorial even show the user exactly how to make an object rotate on the Z axis! The demonstration uses a helicopter with the tail rotor rotating in a vertical position while the main rotor rotates in a horizontal plane. Just point club members to the "Tutorials and Articles" forum section and if there is something they still don't understand, have the ask on the forum and one of us will be more than happy to help. We try to cover all major areas of interest in animation (Pan, Zoom and Rotate) in the Tutorials. If we were to try to put this all into a user guide it would be impossibly convoluted. As it was, even with PTE 5, it took about 130 pages to adequately cover what we did. If we were to make a new User Guide covering everything today "and" try to include tutorials on "how to" within the guide, it might be a gigabyte and have 500 pages! The only sensible way is to cover the basics in the user guide and handle the how to in a series of tutorials. The "majority" of things which are not pretty much self-evident were pretty well covered in the tutorials which I and others have placed in the Tutorials section. There will be some new things when the next release is out and we will try to cover these new items with more tutorials, but I don't think we can do it under a single User Guide - it's just too complex. The problem is that we have a pretty diverse group of people who use PTE. Some just want to make simple slideshows with simple transitions and really don't care to do much more than a bit of pan or zoom. Some want to learn complex animations. Some have very limited aptitudes for understanding complex animations while others can easily master the most intricate concepts with ease and go beyond to devise their own amazing contributions! This makes it quite difficult to create a "one size fits all" user guide. This is why I suggested doing it in a modular fashion with each module handling a different aspect. Categories such as: Sound comments, timeline, pan, zoom, rotate, 3D transformation, music, opacity, parent/child, etc., etc. can all have their own "user guide" plus a series of tutorials. Many of these are already adequately covered while other still need to be generated after the next release is launched. The bottom line is that people need to be reminded that we already have a number of very useful tutorials, but people do have to actually come to the forum and if they don't have time to look around, at least ask and we will point them in the right direction. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jeff, I'm not certain what the problem is, but here's a possible solution: Rename the avatar or photo file on your source drive. Place the "new" avatar or photo in the same folder as the old one and rename it to the former name of the one which you can't seem to remove. Try to upload using the same file name and see what happens. If the problem is resolved, then the issue must be in the forum software. If it's not resolved, then we could assume that the avatar or photo is being stored elsewhere after being uploaded from your system, etc., perhaps on Igor's server. It's difficult sometimes to work out these issues, but if the forum software is just reloading the old photo each time, this approach should work. Best regards, Lin

Hi Guys, I think perhaps that the question of animate or not actually reaches toward the philosophical heart of why people create slideshows and why others watch slideshows. Life itself, by definition, is animation. A photograph is a "slice of life" where time is artificially frozen. and we have more time to examine that artificial segment of a true continuum. The popularity of movies and videos demonstrates, at least in part, that people like to see both that with which they are familiar, but in new context, as well as those things which are novel, imaginary, or unbelievable. Thus we have movies about people or events (lives, strife, war, conquest, contributions to humanity, etc.,) as well as the totally fictitious and unreal. The amazing popularity of books which have been made into movies such as the Harry Potter series, indicate that the human mind is quite versatile and that entertainment can, and should, be just as versatile. This brings into question the purpose of presenting our still images to an audience.There are numerous reasons why we may want to display our photographs. It could be that the presenter is greatly skilled at capturing life or nature on film. The subject matter could be human, animal, God's creations (nature, landscapes, etc.) or human creations (architecture, cities, constructions, etc.). In such a case, the purpose of the presenter is to have others appreciate the photographer's vision or insights into the subject matter. The presentation is then a series of "slices of life." The purpose may be to tell a story, reveal hidden truths, evoke emotional responses, provoke thought or simply entertain. Whether or not to "animate" these images depends greatly on both the image content and the intended purpose of the presentation. There will frequently be a dichotomy of opinion over not only animation, but animation (or not) of what? There will be those who simply become bored with viewing a still image for more than a few seconds and who prefer that image to be in motion. Whether it be zooming in, out or panning or a combination. Others want to see parts of the image in motion such as a winter scene with snow falling or a waterfall with continual motion or the ceaseless motion of waves on the sea. Others will want to view those scenes as that frozen slice of time, without any embellishment by the presenter. So the question then becomes why animate at all when one "could" simply take a video or movie and present that? There is a certain logic to this argument. I believe the reason some are inclined to animate is that with a movie or video, we can only present the motion provided by nature while with animation the author has control over that nature by amount, texture, position, timing, etc., of the animated part or whole. What works for one observer may be folly for another. The very fact that virtually every presentation slideshow software offers multiple "transitions" between slides is objective testimony to the fact that the human mind can quickly become bored not only with senseless motion, but also with the absence of motion. Whether that motion be in part or whole within the image itself or as a break from boredom between images, there is a place for animation. And just as there are countless different subjects for our photographs, there are countless different opinions and preferences concerning how those photographs might be best presented to an audience. One size definitely does not fit all! To animate or not; the eternal question. There are perhaps as many answers as petitioners. Best regards, Lin

I'm pinning this because there are lots of questions about whether this or that video card, system, CPU or laptop will have enough GPU power to run animations, pans, etc., smoothly. Here is a very complete set of benchmarks, updated frequently, where you can get a feel for how the video card in the computer you plan to purchase will perform. There are also benchmarks for systems, CPU and hard drives! http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ Click on the link above and find your card. These are divided into top, middle and low performance charts. Click on one of the charts to see closeups. Go to the white reference chart, enter the video card manufacturer name and number in the search field. Once you have it located, copy down the G3D performance rating and report back and someone here will help you determine how it fares. You can also see the video card's "ranking" among all tested. The lower the number, the better performance you may expect. As of today (September 5, 2009) 694 different video cards have been tested and results posted. As of July 2018 over 1,000,000 different video cards have been tested and results posted. Best regards, Lin

Hey Dom, Cool! She has nice hands too! Lin

Hi Peter, This may be of interest: --------------- by Thomas Ricker posted Jan 6th 2009 at 12:01AM And here you thought AMD's 45-nm Conesuswas its next generation netbook / ultra-portable processor. Sorry, forthat you'll have to wait until the beginning of the second half of 2009according to Bahr Mahony, Director of AMD's mobile division who we justspoke with here at CES. Instead, AMD's Athlon Neo ultra-portableplatform built around existing 65-nm processes is scheduled to make itsretail debut in the US in March. Remember, AMD won't be challenging Intelin a race to the bottom so Neo is aimed squarely at that soft, chewymarketshare nestled between the underperforming $499 netbook andover-the-top $1,499 ultra-portable. Neo boasts more processing powerthan Intel's 45-nm Atom at the cost of a higher load on your batterythanks to the 35W thermal envelop of the Neo chipset combined with adiscrete, ATI Mobility Radeon Hd 3410 graphics. The result however iswhat AMD calls balanced performance from ultra-thin notebooks capableof smooth 1080p playback of your HD media -- a feat that Atom-basednetbooks saddled with integrated graphics struggle with. Interesting,now let's see the 3rd party benchmarks. AMD's data versus the Atomposted after the break.Continue reading AMD kinda sorta takes aim at Atom with Athlon Neo -------------- This would indicate that the Atom-based systems with integrated graphics probably won't be suitable, however the HP system may be quite sufficient. One thing you might want to do is to take some samples of difficult graphics to see how the card handles them. Let me know if you want a link to a test file which challenges graphics and I'll post a link for you. Quite a while ago I made a couple puzzle shows which look very similar but are quite different in terms of loading a video card. If a system can play the difficult one smoothly without excessive "stutter," it "should" be sufficient for almost all PTE animations. Best regards, Lin

LOL - They would be in for a BIG disappointment if they knocked on my door!! They wouldn't find a thing - HA! Lin

Hi David, Yep, there's a bug - I just tried to save without making any changes and got a similar error message. Lin

Hi Lennart, To get perspective change during motion requires 3D transformation which is coming soon in PTE but not yet released. Otherwise to simulate a page turning appear correctly as in real life, it would require use of masking rectangles which would detract a good deal from the very nice image. In version 5.6 it's not possible to have true perspective changes. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, Looks great! The only suggestion I have would be to put a check mark in the "anti-shimmer" (mipmapping) block to eliminate the flicker on zooms. When Igor releases the 3D transformation feature, you can get the perspective for the page flips and this will add a great deal to the authenticity of the effect. Best regards, Lin