Lin Evans

Whether you can do this depends on which type of output is on the CD. If the output is in executable format (high probability) you won't be able to convert it. On the other hand if by chance the CD contains an AVI or MPEG II file, then that could be transferred to DVD format with appropriate third party software. DVD's can be created from AVI or from MPEG II output and these will play on commercial DVD players connected to television receivers. Executable code consists of an instruction set which requires a computer to translate into images. So executable code will not play on DVD media unless that media is used in a computer which can decode the executable file and turn it into sound and images. If you can find the person who originally put the show on a CD and they still have the PTE file, then perhaps they can create a DVD of the show for you. Best regards, Lin

Note to readers: Video is now removed from Vimeo so link below to Vimeo slideshow is moot.... Lin

Hi Bob, There are no pre-programmed "transitions" for objects within a slide other than the slide transition itself, but it is entirely possible to do "wipe" type transitions via the masking. Any object may be placed within a mask and that mask can then be used to make all or part of any object visible or invisible at any time. For example if you look at the sample link below you will see a text object which disappears within the frame of the picture during display. The same technique (gradient mask) in this case can be used on any object. Of course you can also fade out or fade in any object via the opacity and keyframing capability, but the masking allows a virtually unlimited number of possibilities for customizing the effect. http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sample/textgoodbye.zip And the PTE file to see how it's done: http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sampl...xtdisappear.zip Best regards, Lin

Hi Daniel, I have uploaded my "jimmie bond" file to Vimeo at 1440x1080 to test it but it will be at least an hour or more before they have it converted. Best regards. Lin

Hi Gerard, I can't see any real differences between the two for your show. With Vimeo, HD is enabled with full screen but with Youtube you need to also click on full screen as well as on "See in HD" to get the higher quality. It could be that what you see is the effect of some "sharpening" applied by Vimeo to their Flash FLV conversions. This works well for stills, but really messes up zooms and pans expecially if the originals are already quite sharp and there is no way to turn it off. The differences though are quite apparent between Vimeo's HD and Youtube when you upload a 1600x1200 file. Vimeo only supports 720P while Youtube supports 1080p as well as 1600x1200. The differences in image quality between 720p and 1080p are quite apparent. The thing I don't like about Vimeo is their inability to allow 3:2 or 4:3 HD format. Right now I'm testing by uploading a 1440x1080 to Vimeo as suggested by Daniel (above). We'll see how it looks. In order to really get the quality with a 1600x12oo or a 1920x1080 you need some fairly serious video processing power in the video card. Unless you have at least a top of middle range video card such as the nVidia 8800 GT or the nVidia 8600 GT you probably won't appreciate the differences. In fact, without the video card power the higher resolution probably won't be as good. But when you do have the right video card and sufficient resources, the 1600x1200 images are virtually indistinguishable from the original executables except for horizontal pans. Best regards, Lin

The god's smiled on him that day! That's about as close as one can come to loosing it. Back in the early 60's I had to pancake one of my old airplanes onto a 45 degree slope at 13,000 feet in the Sierras because of engine failure. Fortunately it was devoid of large rocks and I walked away without a scratch. The aircraft sustained only minor damage but retrieval was impossible and except for the engine, the winds took it away the following winter. Some areas in our High Sierras are littered with skeletons of craft which didn't get off a short Forest Service air strip on a hot day at 8500 feet elevation. Mountain flying is very tricky, even for the most experienced pilots of light aircraft and gliders. Best regards, Lin

Hi Patrick, It appears from the picture that he is very lucky to have not landed a hundred meters or so beyond where it may have been fatal! Hopefully, he will make a full recovery and have a chance to again enjoy the freedom of soaring... Best regards, Lin

I agree that PTE would be greatly enhanced with the type of sound capabilities which Wings has. From a technical perspective, I'm not certain how feasible this might be to implement. I only bring up the differences between the two approaches (video based tool versus executable tool) because users need to understand that their respective approaches to creating an executable file are apparently quite different. PTE creates an executable file in a quite different way than Wings. I don't know this for a fact because I don't have access to the internals of each program, and I'm not about to reverse engineer either, but I strongly suspect that Wings incorporates a runtime engine which essentially runs its video engine as a "packaged" executable file by wrapping all the code necessary to run the video within the executable file. PTE, on the other hand, creates a pure executable devoid of any "runtime" code. How this may or may not be related to the ease of dealing with audio isn't clear, but it may be a factor. Regardless, right now there does appear to be a bug in the audio code of PTE which I'm sure the developers are looking into. This bug appears to make it difficult to get proper synchronization of sound via the timeline without excessive iterative trial and error. Once that is corrected, then further improvments might be made in handling sound but to do this would require some significant engineering and the development of a "sound engine." Perhaps this is on the horizon for future versions. Note on the above: The apparent "bug" turns out to be a defective MP3 file. Something with the "rewind" is not working properly in the particular MP3. By converting this MP3 to a WAV the problem is resolved so what at first appeared to me to be a bug turns out to be an issue with the file itself. PTE is working properly.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Daniel, I pulled (deleted) the Vimeo version because it wouldn't recognize it at all as an HD file even though the original MP4 was 1600x1200. It appears that Vimeo will not recognize HD unless in the 16:9 aspect ratio which for me is quite awkward because I don't generally create video files but convert stills made at 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio. For this reason I've about given up on Vimeo and much prefer Youtube. Of course the issue with jerky movement in zooms is primarily hardware based on Youtube. That is, if your hardware, and primarily your video card, has sufficient resources and you give the file time to completely buffer, the playback even at 1600x1200 will be quite smooth. The issue with horizontal pans and jerkiness seems to be more complex. At HD resolutions, even when played back locally on any of my systems an MP4 simply isn't as smooth on horizontal pans as the executable. This makes it difficult to know with certainty just how much of an issue is Flash conversion and how much is MP4 creation. I'm unsure why Youtube 1024x768 HD conversions are significantly worse in quality than 1600x1200 because on the original MP4 there appears to be very little difference between them. Something in the conversion to Flash takes its toll on the image quality so I prefer to stick with 1600x1200. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, Indeed Wings is light-years ahead of PTE in audio, but it is unequivocally "not" as good in "all" other areas. Wings is a video based tool, and a very good one - perhaps overall the best or at least one of the best. As such it is limited by the constraints of video itself. Some animations which can be done smoothly with PTE in executable output can not be duplicated with video by any video software presently available. This is not to take anything away from Wings Platinum. I have used Wings for many years as well as some very good and very expensive Sony software. I very much dislike having to have a "dongle" attached to my USB port and for that reason prefer my Sony suite to Wings for many purposes. There is no question that Wings is a very, very good and very superior video presentation tool, but video still can not equal executable mode in the vast majority of the most sophisticated animations and there is little control available in a video presentation for user interactivity as there is in an executables, so there is a place indeed for both these tools. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, This image was done with the little "Gigapan" robotic panorama tool which holds a digicam and is easily programmed specify the upper left and lower right quadrant for a stitched panorama. The robotic device has been available for some time now and presently only accepts digicams (not one for dSLR's yet). You can use their software or your own such as Autopano Pro to do the stitching. The battery driven, tripod mounted robotic device moves the camera a specified distance then presses the shutter release with a little plunger attached to a mechanical arm. This processs is repeated over and again until all overlapping captures necessary to stitch the image have been acquired. Once you have completed the stitch, then you can view on your own system or upload (takes a long time) to their site (free) and link to your website. Their Gigapan software allows zooming to the maximum focal length used in the capture and seamlessly switches the views in and out as you zoom. Almost any digicam can be used and of course the ones with greatest zoom produce the most impressive results. The actual "optical" resolution of any single frame is equal to the optical resolution of the camera used but of course the overall resolution in pixel count is equal to the cumulative frames minus the percentage for stitches. In practical terms, this is limited to around 200 frames per stitched pano with about 100 franmes being suggested as a practical limit. The authors of Autopano Pro have actually created multi-gigabyte stitches far in excess in terms of resolution and scope beyond the Gigapan process, but for home use the little robotic unit is quite amazing and costs under $400 U.S.D. As of today, a 13 gigapixel stitch of Harlem has already been done and the 20 gigapixel stitch of Paris is planned for this summer: http://www.paris-20-gigapixels.com/en/ Here's a link to their site if anyone wants to read more about the technology: http://gigapansystems.com/home.html And here is a link to some of the pretty impressive Gigapan stitches - on this one too much chromatic aberration at max zoom but very impressive. I suspect the photographer used digital zoom to get the extreme closeups: http://gigapan.org/viewGigapan.php?id=5322...indow_width=984 The above stitches are about a gigapixel in total image size. The project now being developed will shortly render a 20 gigapixel image of Paris..... here: http://www.paris-20-gigapixels.com/en/ and here: http://www.autopano.net/blog/2008/12/15/ne...-20-gigapixels/ Best regards, Lin

Hi, Could you provide some more details? How did you proceed with creating the MPG file - the parameters you used such as the settings on Project Options in Video Builder (assuming you were using Video Builder). You can open any PTE file with 5.6 but if you have created a PTE file with 5.6 which has masking and you open it with an earlier version such as 5.0 - 5.5 the masking will not work. You can't open a 5x file with a 4x, 3x, 2x, or 1x version of PTE. Best regards. Lin

Hi Peter, LOL - Understood. I have emailed Igor and provided him with an explanation and link to Hilary's zipped PTE file so hopefully when he gets a chance he can look into this. No need to get involved in a third issue right now. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, Stu, I've experimented with Hilary's slideshow and I believe there is a bug in PTE. Her sound consists of a single vocal narration background MP3 installed under the Music Tab in Project Options. When a full screen Preview is played, or when an executable is created, the sound placement via slides is consistent. However, when the mini-player is used or when the blue indicator arrow is moved about on the timeline, the vocal narration timing varies by as much as two seconds at about the forty two second position. Moreover, if the mini-player slider is manually positioned at zero, the blue indicator on the timeline does not return to zero but stops at a position which doesn't seem to be always consistent, but somewhere after the zero point. If "play" is then clicked on, the blue indicator arrow "jumps" to the beginning and play starts from the correct point. This leads me to believe that when manually dragging the blue arrow on the timeline about, it may not properly align with real time. This issue makes it quite difficult to precisely sequence slide or transition points with the background narration. The only way I see to accomplish this is by an arduous iterative process involving multiple replays of the entire show. This effectively defeats the purpose of both the timeline and mini-player as a means of precise sequencing. If you would like to experiment with this, please email me and I'll provide her link to the zipped PTE file: lin@learntomakeslideshows.net Lin Postcript: There is no bug - the problem turns out to be a defect in the MP3 file. When converted to a WAV the problem evaporates.....

Hi Mark, To test I need the zipped PTE file which contains all images as well as the PTE file. Just go to "File" "Create Backup in Zip" and post a link to it on your site or use: http://www.mediafire.com/ and send me a link. I'll create a CD and test it for you and get back with you on it. Best regards, Lin

I borrowed your concept for the ending on this one. Still looking for a way to get more dramatic flames but as yet not found one......: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k67RtpsOc8 (youtube link at 1600x1200). Start, let it buffer to the end first then restart for best playback ...... Or zipped exe here: http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sample/jimmiebond.zip Lin

Hi, Something is not right if Video Builder doesn't give you the very best quality possible in a DVD. The output from Video Builder when you have things right can not be improved on in a DVD format. As a test, I just created a DVD using my "rotation madness" PTE file which has the very most difficult and trying pans, rotates, zooms, etc., and the DVD created with Video Builder is absolutely as good as DVD's get. The image quality, movements and so on are perfectly smooth and jerk free. If you will set up a link to the zipped PTE for me, I will test this with your PTE file and report back. I'm not sure what your problem with Video Builder may have been or is, but your settings may be responsible. The default setting "should" produce a perfect DVD with as much resolution as possible to get from PAL or NTSC and with very smooth movements including pans, zooms and rotates. As for using Nero and an AVI, unfortunately I have no recent experience so can't be of any help. I can tell you that often a computer will not play a DVD file as smoothly as a commercial player attached to a TV so if you haven't tested the output that way it might be different. Best regards, Lin

Hi Hilary, You have created the file needed (the zip file containing all information). You can either post it on your own website (if you have one) and a link here or you can email it to me at: lin@learntomakeslideshows.net I can only handle emails up to about 10 meg so if the zip file is larger, it would be much better to use your own site and a link or use one of the available free upload sites with an appropriate link. You might try: http://www.mediafire.com/ Best regards, Lin

Hi, I'm a little confused. Are you creating DVD's or trying to play the file on your computer? Normally, to create a DVD you use Video Builder and do not choose a codec. If you are using other software, which are you using? Have you actually created the DVD's and played them on a stand-alone DVD player attached to a television, or are you playing the DVD's on your computer? The "best" way I've found to create and burn a DVD is to simply use Video Builder, choose NTSC or PAL, etc., according to your geographical need and take the defaults. Unless you are using third party software to burn an AVI or MPEG to DVD, there should be no choice of codec. Only when you create a "custom AVI" should you need to choose a video codec. On the other hand, if you are trying to burn an HD MP4 to a standard DVD blank and using another software product such as Pinnacle that's another issue entirely. If you could clarify, it would be easier to offer suggestions. Thanks, Lin

Hi Geoff, It's actually "Youtube" not "Utube". Of the last 81 thread titles under the PTE title, five are about Youtube - that's hardly being "bogged down" or "overloaded" don't you think? If one counted by category responses rather than by thread titles then a discussion about "projectors versus monitors" might be the top contender lately, but this is what a discussion forum is all about. Many of the new people who come to the forums are quite interested in Youtube and Vimeo and these are two of the main additions to the latest released version 5.6, so naturally are of interest to many. There is no need to start a discussion about whether or not Youtube or Vimeo for that matter are of interest, if they were not then the developers of PTE would not have included them. Also there is no reason to choose whether to support Beechbrook Cottage "or" Youtube/Vimeo, there is plenty of room for both. Youtube and Vimeo do not support executable files and Bill doesn't host videos so it's definitely not an "either/or" situation. It's up to the individual to decide how to create their slideshows and where they may wish to post them. Remember that many people who create shows wish to share them with a large audience and there is still a rather strong reluctance on the part of many out there toward downloading executable code regardless of how "safe" we know it is. This is perhaps why video and sharing sites such as Youtube, Vimeo, Facebook, are so popular. A video displayed on Youtube will be avable to literally millions of viewers each day. An executable posted on one's own site or on Beechbrook will be available only to those who know about one's own site or Beechbrook - and were there to be even a fraction of as many visits and downloads from Beechbrook as from Youtube or Vimeo it would totally overwhelm Bill's bandwidth. The newcomers to the forum ask questions about issues which concern them and hopefully get an unbiased answer to their questions or they are referred to technical support when members can't provide adequate solutions. I suppose my point is that we really don't need a special category yet for Youtube and Vimeo, but if interest gets truly overwhelming it would be something for Wnsoft to consider. Best regards, Lin

I uploaded the identical 1600x1200 MP4 to both Youtube and Vimeo as a test. This video has only one zoom and no pan or rotate but does use some fast sequences and some animation via mask movement. The result was that Youtube displays it with full HD capabilities at 1600x1200 resolution. If given time to fully buffer or at least buffer half way through the less than 2 minute run time, the Youtube version looks nearly perfect. Vimeo, on the other hand, does not indicate that it is an HD video at all. At this time (more than an hour after conversion) Vimeo displays the file in the correct aspect ratio but only at low quality. Full screen version at Vimeo is not great at all. Interestingly, none of my MP4 players will play the file correctly at 1600x1200 HD conversion. Media Player Classic Homecinema clips off the bottom one inch or so but renders the zoom correctly, however it totally looses sync with sound and picture on the second portion with the bullets, etc. Kantaris Media Player incorrectly "steps" the zoom in big "jumps" rather than smoothly zooming in. However it does render the proper timing on the bullet holes and sound. The interesting thing is that apparently the MP4 itself is created correctly because the conversion to Flash at both Youtube and Vimeo renders the show correctly! So we are left with the issue than as of right now, there are things in our video creations which "may" confuse all current MP4 media players even though the actual MP4 file is created correctly - it may not play back correctly on our players. The fact that the conversion to Flash renders a file almost identical to the executable means that the original MP4 is "correct" even if we can't display it correctly! Here are links to Youtube and Vimeo for those interested: http://vimeo.com/3094970 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7k67RtpsOc8 Lin

Hi Guys, Please read this from Brian: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9412 Lin

Hi Guys, Please read this from Brian: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9412 Lin

Hi Guys, Please read this from Brian: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9412 Lin