Lin Evans

Hi Bill, Actually, I "think" that the XP-Codec-Pac 2.5.0 should be installed by default under "Program Files" as here: http://www.xpcodecpack.com/pictures/screenshots/xp_codec_pack_menu.htm But once it's installed, this is only the "container" for the codecs - one still must open the codec pac and choose the particular codecs which the program will then install. Not being familiar with this particular codec pack, I don't know exactly how they proceed, but the one's I am familiar with generally present a menu from which you choose individual codecs which the program then places where they need to be to be recognized. Also after they are installed I believe you need to reboot before Windows recognizes their presence. So you may want to uninstall the codec-pac via Windows Control Panel and reinstall as the default. After installation look in the folder for an icon to "run" the codec pac program which "should" then present you with a menu to choose individual codecs to be installed. Don't install all of them but rather choose individual ones. Usually there is a check box which you use to select the ones you want and the program takes care of placement. You may also want to read this: http://www.mydigitallife.info/2007/08/15/how-to-install-windows-xp-and-2000-default-codecs-manually/ Let me know how you get along with this because we can continue to work out this issue. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, I suspect that the PTE codec worked O.K. for Bill since he was able to create a DVD with PTE. Creating a stand-alone AVI requires a custom codec since the PTE codec creates a temporary "template" which is holding and distributing all the PTE file parameters just until the DVD is created then erased. In the early days, before PTE 5.0, burning the DVD required another program such as Pinnacle which could read the temporary file and use it to burn a DVD. Once Video Builder and 5.0 became available, then the PTE Codec was, as far as I know, only used when creating a DVD and not for other video processes. Video Builder itself, AFAIK, furnishes the requisite information for the MP4, h.264. Why one system might "hang" at 99% yet apparently create the DVD while another appears to finish more quickly and reach 100% is problematic and may hold a clue as to the issues. The one thing I'm fairly certain of is that Bill's present codec choices are not sufficient for producing a stand-alone AVI file. As for why the PTE codec might work for one and not another could depend on a number of possible issues. One past issue was conflict of burn drivers. At one time, people who had EZ CD Creator and Nero both resident on their systems could not get either to work. They had to completely erase all vestiges of one to get the other to function properly. Issues with DVD burning got so bad at one time that Photodex support was suggesting that their users actually use different software to burn DVD's. It's really a complex issue trying to get the wide variety of DVD burners, different types of media, etc., to all work harmoniously. I really wish there were a simple solution, but apparently there are some situations which are seriously difficult to resolve. That's one reason I suggested using the Windows Task Manager to eliminate as many variables as possible to see if some conflict might be responsible. Best regards, Lin

Hi Herhey, Great one! Good to see you back here! I remember the animated card you made for your sister's birthday quite a while ago - excellent job with the "running skeleton!" Best regards, Lin

Hi Bill, None of those are actually much help. I would download the K-Lite full pack or the Ace Megapack (perhaps the K-Lite has more current codecs) and install a few of the more popular ones such as Mpeg II and maybe Mpeg 4 and DivX, etc. Don't install any more than six or eight. You can get the Microsoft Mpeg 4 here: http://www.afreecode...icrosoft-mpeg4/ Once you have a few of these you should be able to make a stand-alone AVI and MP4 without problems. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bill, Just a couple thoughts: First, the codec used by PTE for burning an AVI to DVD is not designed to create a stand-alone file. This stems from earlier versions of PTE where one could burn a PTE show to a DVD by creating a temporary "template" hence the PTE codec. You are on the right track by choosing "custom AVI" and then choosing an audio and video codec. Both the audio and video codec's resident on any particular computer will be highly variable depending on previous software which has been installed. PTE simply reads the available codecs and presents them in a Windows provided tabular form for selection. There are numerous free codec packs such as found here: http://www.free-code...Codec_Packs.htm They include the ACE Megapac, K-Lite, etc., and any of them can provide codecs such as the Microsoft MPEG 4 or MPEG 2, or others which will allow you to create a stand-alone AVI. The one you have chosen for audio is fine. That you are able to burn a DVD means that a codec is available (the default is the PTE codec) so your system including the DVD burner is properly operational. The way I would approach this is to get some rewritable media to experiment with for h.264. Next would be to try to create a stand-alone avi file without the preview. If you can tell me which video codecs are available in the drop-down list, perhaps I can help you choose one which will work for testing. For the purpose of your MacIntosh use, just use the 5.7 beta to create a native MacIntosh executable. This is one of the options, and what I would suggest is to choose the "zip" output. This puts all files necessary to play a full resolution slideshow on the MacIntosh exactly as the show plays on your own Windows computer. This is "far" superior to h.264. Truthfully, I'm not overly impressed with h.264 as implemented by "any" slideshow program. h.264 works pretty well for video, but I've yet to see any really smooth pans or even zooms when a high resolution (1920x1080) slideshow having much in the way of animation is played back on a computer. My take on it is that MP4 h.264 is not there yet for presentation slideshows make with any really demanding animations. On the other hand, the shows which are output for the MacIntosh via the native Mac exeutable format in PTE are absolutely fantastic - just like the PTE executable shows on a Windows machine with a decent graphics card. The other issue with h.264 is that there are very few players (if any) which actually handle the files correctly when they don't conform exactly to 1080 or 720 wide angle. For example, I can create a 1600x1200 h.264 which will convert on Youtube and play perfectly as the Youtube Flash file, but which absolutely will not play properly in "any" player which I have tried, and that's about every player available. Even with the Classic Home Cinema player (about the best) the bottom of the image is cut off; yet, when I send the same file to Youtube, the Flash conversion plays properly. This tells me that there are still unresolved issues with computer players and h.264 which can complicate an already complex issue. Since it's possible to play an executable Windows show directly to a large screen 1080p via an HDMI port, I would just skip the h.264 all together unless all you are doing are simple transitions and no animations. Of course the important thing is to get your system to create a stand-alone AVI and h.264. This can be worked out, but it's difficult to say without some testing what might be causing the problem. The first thing I would do would be to disable any other software temporarily, especially virus protection. Just disconnect from the internet and kill other programs via the Windows Task Manager and see if you can create a file then. If you can, then re-introduce other items into the task manager one at a time to see what may be causing the problem. Best regards, Lin

Hi Isabel, Actually, it's pretty easy once you remember that you have to click in the "Create Custom AVI Video File" circle. Next you must choose from your available video codecs, so you click on the Video Codec Tab and choose something fairly generic. If you have a Microsoft Mpeg II or Mpeg 4 that would be good. Next click in the Audio Codec tab and see if you have a 44,100 16 bit stereo choice which would be nice. Since you have done this before, you obviously have at least one Video Codec and at least one Audio Codec which will work. You can always download free Codec Packs such as the K-Lite (free) pack, etc., but probably won't need to. Finally, you just choose an appropriate size such as 720x480 and an FPS rate such as (59.94) which indicates the "frames per second" and finally click on "Create" and choose the folder where you want it to go. If you are creating a wide show then choose the appropriate dimensions instead of the 720x480 which is actually correct for an NTSC DVD. That's all there is to it! The program will create a stand-alone AVI file for you this way..... Best regards, Lin

Hi Fried, According to the table the GeForce 9800M GTX has a rating of 722 which makes it very good for a laptop. My desktop card, an nVidia GeForce 8800 GT has a rating of 966. It requires a minimum of a 450 watt power supply just to supply power for the video card! Among the top rated cards, the GeForce GTX 285 has a rating of 2025. The very top card right now, an overclocked model of the GeForce GTX 295 has not yet been rated in the chart, but some systems use twin GTX 295's which are liquid cooled and have incredible throughput. Technology moves so fast that it's difficult to keep up! The important thing to realize is that you can easily create smooth running shows with your laptop which simply won't function that way with the vast majority of older systems so it's always best to try to hang on to a less powerful model just to test with and be sure that you don't overdo your graphics for older systems when you widely distribute your shows. Best regards, Lin

Hi Fried, I neglected to put the link to the videocard test site above, but have since edited and added it. You can pass this link to your users and they can find out how their video cards stack up against better ones. I have what was "once" a top-of-the-line nVidia 8800 GT card which now falls less than half way among the really powerful new cards. For desktop systems running Windows and having a modern bus such as a PCI Express, I would recommend a minimum of an nVidia GeForce 8600 GT card. They have plenty of power to run most graphic intensive PTE shows and don't cost an arm and a leg. They have a rating of 402 which is a tad beneath my suggestion above, but since I have one to test I can assure anyone that they will do all but the most demanding of PTE shows. With the new features coming out in the next release such as 3D Transform, it will be possible to exceed even what they can do if you get too carried away. I just created a test show which even gives my 8800GT all it can handle. Hopefully, as systems are replaced with Vista and Windows 7 capable machines, the problems of video cards lacking sufficient power will become a moot issue. Best regards, Lin

Hi Fried, I just watched your executable show and have some suggestions which may help. First, the show was excellent and the pans, zooms and the one rotate were butter smooth on my system. From your description I can assume that there are some things which may be a bit confusing. First, you mentioned jpg "quality" and this concerns me. Usually when I hear "quality" and the word jpg it means degree of "compression." Whether you save your jpg at Photoshop 12 or Photoshop 3, the file will expand to its full eight bit size in memory so there is absolutely zero gain by using high jpg compression. The way to increase performance is to decrease jpg dimensions, not increase compression. So if you use higher compression, there will be only loss, not gain. In case you haven't already done so, use a product like Irfanview and resample your originals to a new folder so you don't affect the originals. Resample them to the precise dimensions you are using such as 1920x1080 pixels. Leave the compression at the best quality setting. Second, for your images with zooms and pans, click on the "anti shimmering" (mipmapping) in Objects and Animations Property Tab. This will minimize or eliminate the shimmer or flicker on detail objects especially during zooms. Third, use the beta 5.7 to output native MacIntosh executable code for the majority of your MacIntosh users. This works for all users who have Intel based MacIntosh (any sold in last three years) with OS 10.4 or better operating systems. MP4 h.264 simply can't handle pans smoothly and certainly not fast rotates. It's not the systems, it's simply not that great regardless of what you might hear. This has been proven with countless different programs which output h.264 MP4 files. It works well for video taken with video cameras, but not for conversions to video via slideshow programs. Straight images without animation work well, but animation is always jerky regardless of the software used or the size of the output. It's just not there yet. If anyone is having problems with your executable being not smooth enough on the pans or zooms, it's a hardware limitation, not the show itself. The way to get around this is to decrease the pixel dimensions. Even when you do this, those with graphic's challenged video cards may not get smooth pans or fast rotates. The PTE output is hardware rendered using the graphics power of the GPU in the video card. Some of the animation will go as high and higher than 60 frames per second and a fairly decent video card is absolutely necessary to play this back smoothly, especially when you are outputting at 1920x1080 pixels. I have a variety of systems to test with. Any video card which scores around 440 or better on the tests as seen in the link below, will render the show smoothly. Any of the really poor video cards typically found in older laptops will not. To find out which video card your users have, ask them to go to the "Start" "Run" and type in "dxdiag." This will give the manufacturer of the video card and the amount of dedicated video RAM. Next go to this link and scroll down and find the "white" table (the fourth of four tables). Type in the video card description in the "search" field and read the number in the G3D rating column. If it is less than about 440 then the video card "probably" isn't up to snuff. http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/ Link above to videocard test site: NOTE: If you use 5.7 beta 14 to output to native MacIntosh format (suggest doing it as zip), then do not save the original PTE file under 5.7. If you "do" want to save the file, use an alternative file name. Files saved under 5.7 can't be opened with earlier versions of PTE. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, It's not your mistake, it's mine. I read Audition as Audacity. I've never seen a file type 30 either so am in the dark about that as well. What happens when you try to play the file in another program like Audacity or Irfanview? I know PTE is very "particular" about the "correctness" of MP3's so something must be upsetting the apple cart with the output. Just for fun, if you have Audacity, try loading the file in there and exporting under a new mp3 file name and see what happens.... Another thought: where did you get the original file which you output from Audition? Could you be running up against an issue of DRM? Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, It's not your mistake, it's mine. I read Audition as Audacity. I've never seen a file type 30 either so am in the dark about that as well. What happens when you try to play the file in another program like Audacity or Irfanview? I know PTE is very "particular" about the "correctness" of MP3's so something must be upsetting the apple cart with the output. Just for fun, if you have Audacity, try loading the file in there and exporting under a new mp3 file name and see what happens.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, I've not seen a .30 file extension, but a .030 extension is a printer driver file. I would first delete completely and reload Audacity then try again and see if you still get this .30 extension. By doing as Dave suggests, you can at least see if the output is correct and being simply mislabeled for some strange reason. Which operating system are you using? Best regards, Lin

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