Lin Evans

Hi Hilary, Just for clarification: Are you saying that the "Preview" with full screen sound timing is different than the created executable or that the mini-player sound timing is different than the created executable. Either way, could you be specific in describing "not the same?" This will help the development team in determining the origin of the problem. Would it be possible for you to post a zipped PTE example file which shows the issue? Thanks, Lin

Hi Ralph, A little "Jimmie Bond" ending with a "hot" finish for this: http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sample/jimmiebond.zip (about 12 meg) Lin

Hi Peter, The operant word is "recognize." When you click on "add a mask" the formats are "bmp, jpeg, jpg and png." You can add a gif "if" you already know the file name or write it down, but the program doesn't "recognize" gif files in that it doesn't automatically "display" gif files in the folder or on the drive even though it will let you use one if you type in the name. Best regards, Lin

Suggest recognizing .gif as a valid format for masks.... Right now only jpg and png are automatically detected. Sometimes a GIF file can be advantageous because with masks color is not needed - just B&W and even though one may "detect" no color in a PNG visually, there may still be a good deal of RAM tied up with color unless the file is desaturated. Gif files only having 256 color possibilities are almost always smaller and "sometimes" make a great mask. I think the majority of JPD's recent masks are gif files... Best regards, Lin

Hey Ralph, LOL - see if you like the latest "Bond, James Bond" ending...... http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sample/bondending.zip Lin

Hi Pedro, theDom (Dominick) has done this in many different ways - perhaps a trip to his site for one of his templates would help - at least have a look: http://www.thedom.fr/shop/ Best regards, Lin

http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sampl...oitautoshow.zip Just messing.... Lin

Hi Davy, A very enjoyable visit to an historic place! Thanks, Lin

Thanks! I'll let you know how it works out.. Lin

Hi Eric, Ken, Thanks - I'm looking for some really good HD video to extract frames of flames from - something which shows the tops of the "licking" flames and preferably with a black background. I may have to build my own "bonfire" and take my own photos. Actually, the one in the demo is very close to the original flames in the video I extracted frames from to sequence for this test. Here's the video I used to extract frames: Lin

Hi Tom, Here's the link to the zipped PTE file. Run it in the Preview mode (full screen, normal Preview) then create an exe file and run that. The exe file drops "lots" of frames. http://www.lin-evans.org/demo/flamesjan30.zip Best regards, Lin

I put the actual flames animation on Youtube as an experiment using 1600x1200 with double pass and 10,000 bitrate. It looks very much like the actual MP4 which was about 130 meg. Here's a link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c8TSSf2_H9M...re=channel_page Use the "Pause" after starting to let the buffer run ahead at least three inches before watching. I'm still playing with your concept of the mask so haven't put that one up yet for consideration. Best regards, Lin

Thanks, that saves me the time of hunting down a suitable image to experiment with. Most of mine are wildlife, landscape oriented, etc. Best regards, Lin

Some more interesting observations come from experimentation. I learned that PTE 5.6 can sequence frames (images) much faster in Preview mode than in the executable. See my notes here: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9392 In this case, the created MP4 at 1600x1200 is considerably better than the created executable because the executable is dropping many frames. Though I'm not certain this method is any improvement over what you have begun, it's more like what you would see of a video taken of flames. If you want to see the MP4 it's about 60 megabytes and you can download here: http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/mp4/flamesvideo.zip The zipped PTE file is here: http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/mp4/flamesjan30.zip The PTE file only has a couple sets of the sequence while the MP4 has 1001 frames. The executable made from the PTE file drops too many frames to be useful. I think that the method you are using could really be put to good use with an animation such as a candle flame. It "may" prove to be the best way to do this for the image you used as a sample "if" it is possible to rework the PNG file to eliminate the static "column" which doesn't move and detracts from the realism. I think it might be easier simply to rework both the jpg and flames to make it realistic, but it would need to have no really large, static columns of fire. If you can link me to the jpg "without" the flames I'll give it a try. Best regards, Lin

In playing with creating a "Fire" or flame animation I discovered that 5.6 can sequence much faster in Preview mode than the created executable can. This is not true of 5.1, etc., because the frame sequence capabilities are identical in the Preview. That is, 5.1 can't sequence as fast in preview as 5.6. The created executables are identical from 5.6 and 5.1 but 5.6 can sequence must faster in Preview and a created MP4 at 1600x1200 actually beats the executable by a considerable margin in this case!! This is one case where the executable looses to the MP4. Actually, I thought earlier versions actually created a temporary executable for the Preview. Maybe so, maybe not. When I set frame timings for as fast as 120ms the preview runs them at apparently true speed while the created executable apparently drops frames. I'm wondering now if this has any relevance to the horizontal pans being somewhat jerky in the creation of the MP4?? Anyone who is interested in seeing this, email me and I'll post the original PTE file for you to experiment with. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jerry, The reason I wanted to check the snowfall animation was to try to determine how much of the issue is video RAM versus video card GPU performance. The snowfall doesn't require a great deal of video RAM but does require a decent video card GPU to get smooth results. That you have jerky movement on your Youtube playback with the same card then tells me that the probability is that the video card just doesn't have sufficient RAM to handle the MP4 h.264 or Flash conversion smoothly. The fact that your hi-end laptop is much better is a good indication that your connection, etc., are probably fine and that it's primarily the video card on the other system which is the culprit. I think there is little we can do about the jerky movement on horizontal pans. This seems to be an issue regardless of the quality and resources of one's hardware. I've got some pretty powerful hardware systems and no matter what I use, horizontal pans just are not that good in either Youtube, Vimeo or on my systems with MP4's. I suggest just trying to avoid them for now. Perhaps sometime in the future they will catch up with the executable quality but not quite there yet. I used "Custom" mode with the horizontal set to 1600 and vertical to 1200 with 60p (60 frames per second) and quality 100. This is single pass encoding and probably is about as good as double pass for Youtube since the Flash conversion will downgrade the MP4 anyway. For home use and for burning to Bluray, etc., I would suggest the double pass and 1000 bitrate. The single pass 100 quality is 600 bitrate as far as I can determine so not "quite" as good in terms of image quality, but still very good for web presentation. I don't think Youtube will get it much better than the above settings, but I'm still experimenting so not absolutely certain of that. The reason I suggested that Igor implement (he did) the 1600x1200 custom mode as an option versus 1080p and 720p is that unless you have a Nikon D90 or Canon 5D Mark II, the probability is that as photographers we will generally get more utility from a 4:3 or 3:2 aspect ratio than from having to crop our images to fit the video 16:9 mode. I hate having to cherry pick my own images to find ones amenable to cropping and I don't have a video camera with 16:9 either. It seems a shame to waste even part of the full sensor resolution on a good dSLR even if one of mine could shoot in 16:9. I really enjoyed your show. I spent a good deal of time in Alaska in earlier years, did my winter survival training with 5th Special Forces there back in the 60's, and always love to see the country. Never tire of it. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jerry, I just watched it on my 8800GT card and it's smooth "except" for the pan which pretty jerky at the start then smooths out about half way to the boat. It's much more jerky than the MP4 was. Usually the 8600 GT card is quite good, but the 256 meg video RAM may be a bit short for these big h.264's. Fortunately I also have a system up right now with an 8600 GT with 512 meg so I'm going to watch it with that one and see if there is any relevant difference. .................. Just watched it on the 8600 GT and again other than the pan it's pretty good. The zooms are smooth but the pan is jerky - not good at all. Let's try an experiment and see how much influence the 256 versus 512 video RAM makes. I just put up a 1600x1200 which has no pans or zooms but has multiple large PNG layers creating falling snow. If you could look at it and tell me if the snow falls smoothly, maybe we can determine how much of this is due to the card's capability and how much is due to the amount of RAM. Youtube is "very" slow right now on my system so you may need to wait an extended time for buffering. I would start the show in full screen HD then hit pause and let the gas gage go at least three inches to the right or so before beginning. If the snow fall is jerky on your system then the probability is that you need more video RAM. Something like an 8800GT with 512 meg RAM will do it, but you need a minimum of 450w power supply and at least two 4 pin molex connectors free or one 8 pin connector because the 8800 GT, unlike the 8600 GT has to have external power. Here's the link - maybe we can figure this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP09_-nwNG4 Best regards, Lin

I have some ideas about this which may work - give me a couple days and I'll have something up which you can evaluate. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jerry, I downloaded and played your MP4. It runs smoothly on my system except for a slight jerky horizontal pan to the boat. First try these players. Download and install: http://mpc-hc.sourceforge.net/ http://www.videohelp.com/tools/Kantaris_Media_Player If this fails to give you smoother play, please go to your "Start" "Run" and type dxdiag then click on O.K. When the diagnostic runs, please click on the "Display" tab and report back the model of your video card, amount of video RAM, etc. I can look it up for you and see if your card may not have enough clout to run large h.264 mp4's smoothly. Some cards will run the executable without problem yet have jerky movement on the h.264. Vimeo simply can't play back a smooth HD video with any animation. Youtube can, but if you upload at above 720p your card may not be up to playing back smoothly. We are having a discussion about this very issue here: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9355 Best regards, Lin

LOL - What are we talking about, moving the mouse one centimeter? Most people "think" top down. That is the highest scores on test returns are at the top of the list. Top 10, Fortune 50 companies, richest man in the universe, etc., all from number 1 to #n. Why then would you want to reverse this for the sake of "ergonomics?" when the normal inclination for at least "most" language groups is to read from top down, left to right. I could see changing the position for language groups which read left to right but still they read top-down don't they? Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, One of the reasons PTE has so few bugs is that we are all beta testers. Beta versions are available as they are built for all to test therefore maximizing the probability of swatting bugs before the release. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, Could you create a zip file including your PTE file which you can't open and the images needed to run this PTE and post a link to it? We could look at it and see whether the problem is local or with the file itself. It is possible to edit a PTE file manually but I would need to look at it to see if I can find an issue. Best regards, Lin

I think you are on the right track, but as Frank pointed out, the black harsh lines are an issue, but these can be solved by using a combination of the "clone" or "rubber stamp" feature of Photoshop and the blur tool to soften the edges. But this is only part of the solution. The second part is that flames would not remain in a fixed location casting fixed shadows, however soft and however slightly moved in a horizontal or ripple effect by the mask. What you need is a minimum of three jpg images, each with the flames of a different shape and in a different position where they cross the subject. There are several ways to approach this. One way would be to sequence these three differing views in and out rapidly with keyframes. You could set them to fade in and out sequenced with opacity control so that one was fadeing out rapidly while the second was fading in at the same rate. Then the second would fade out while the third was fading in. This whole process would be repeated except in a different order so that the movement of the flames on the subjects would be random. Once you have a decent sequence, then you would copy and paste the main images multiple times as slides to minimize RAM overhead. In each object set you would be running the same mask effect you are using. The difference would be that the shadows and flames would be constantly changing where they cross the subject. Using three would be a big improvement, but using six or so would be a major improvement. It's a lot of work to get this effect but it would be possible. It's just that by doing it this way you would have to create new images each time you create another show. The other way would be to try to create a gradient mask which would allow you to use the flame sequence on numerous images. The mask would have to be shaped very much like the flames with only enough room for the horizontal movement of the flames. It could get complicated.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, Perhaps just place the bottom option (Create Executable, etc.) at the top rather than at the bottom of the list (leave everything else the same) and put the words "Highest Quality and Quick Creation" in bold?? Best regards, Lin

Hi Igor, Thanks! I actually have the latest version and it's definitely a bug of some sort. No matter which setting either the bottom of the frame is clipped off or there is a grey bar as in the image below. This image (slideshow) was created with 5.6 release and plays perfectly on my Kantaris Media Player. I uploaded the show to Youtube and it plays perfectly there so the problem is definitely in the Media Player Classic Home Cinema. Sorry, I had to take a photo of the screen - Snagit screen capture wouldn't work with the Media Player. Best regards, Lin