Lin Evans

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

Nice job Noel! Barry will recognize some of his music too! You did an excellent job both with the presentation and with the photography. It's difficult to get good lighting without lots of shadows in the gallery and you captured the subject very well indeed. Keep up the good work! Best regards, Lin

Hi Jerry, Actually there is no "intermediate" file created, only an MP4 which is then automatically selected and uploaded to Youtube (or Vimeo). If your new MP4 created manually is considerably larger than the other, it's most likely because of the file size or because of a different option in terms of file dimension chosen for the creation. The MP4 which is uploaded to Youtube or Vimeo is stored on your hard disk as well as uploaded to one of these two sites where it is converted by their software to Flash FLV format. I'm not certain why your system isn't creating the MP4 file - I'm sure technical support will be able to help with that, but I suggested doing it manually as a work-around in order to get the job done. Again, the sise of the MP4 created will depend on these factors: 1. Whether you choose Standard or HD high quality 2. The number of slides in your show and their respective pixel dimensions. 3. The dimensions you choose (if you create custom) for the MP4 Best regards, Lin

Hi Aleana, Nice to have you aboard and posting to the forums!! We hope to hear more from you on technical issues! Welcome aboard!! Lin

Hi Jose, I'm not familiar with DAP so am looking into it. I'm not certain about how it works - how it's possible to really accelerate the downloads beyond the limits of the connection and the server. I'll get back on this as soon as I know more about it. My gut feeling is that these "accelerator" type programs don't really work but I could be very wrong about this because I really don't know exactly how they do what they claim to do. I was able to find this mini-review and partial explanation. Nothing I have seen leads me to believe that there is anything "illegal" or "forbidden" about using it, it appears to just split large files into smaller pieces and seek out multiple sources and the best "connection" speeds - at least that's what I gather from first read..... http://www.download.com/Download-Accelerat...4-10037157.html Best regards, Lin

Hi Jerry, Try uploading manually and see if you get the same issue. Also, can you find and play the MP4 locally on your hard disk? I've uploaded a number of Youtube files from 5.6 without problems so the first thing is to determine if the MP4 was created at all. If you've not done this before, just log on to Youtube, click the "Upload" then navigate to the MP4 file on your hard disk and select it and click "open." Lin

Apparently there is an issue with Classic Home Cinema player and 1200x1600 MP4 h.264 files. The player cuts off the bottom inch or so. It also shows a "wrinkle" (distortion) in the bottom of 1024xi768 pixel MP4's. These problems are not seen with my Kantaris Player (based on VLC Media Player code) so my assumption is that at least my Classic Home Cinema 1.2.908.0 is not playing these larger files correctly.... Lin

Hi Igor, 1600x1200 MP4 not working right in Classic Home Cinema - It appears 5.6 is creating the file correctly because it runs properly on Kantaris Media Player, but Classic Home Cinema 1.2.908.0 cuts off the bottom of the file and distorts the bottom at 1024x768. Lin

Hi Stu, A quote from that page: Looks like this card may not have sufficient power to handle the 1600x1200 video smoothly. Best regards, Lin ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 ATI Mobility Radeon X1400 is part of the lower middle class. The performance can be compared with an elder X600, but technically it is a X1300, which is scarcely 100 Mhz higher clocked. For not very demanding DirectX 9 games the card is sufficient. Because of the AVIVO video technology the card can help the CPU decode MPEG-2, MPEG-4, DivX, WMV9 and VC-1 video formats.

Hi Ralph, Yes, light is the "secret" to many of the aspects of photography. Early morning light has its distinct charms. When light is still beneath the horizon there are almost no shadows which gives a totally different "feel" from the long shadows of evening light or the harsh shadows of mid-day. The sky can act as a huge "soft box" to flatten and disperse light. On the pano you will notice that the only significant shadows are high on the rocks where direct morning light has reached by virtue of the height. On the down side, early morning just before sunrise calls for higher ISO or longer exposures so rock steady tripod is significant in getting decent results. Best regards, Lin

Beautiful in every respect - thanks! Lin

Hi Stu, Thanks! Excellent idea. As soon as we get enough responses I'll try to chart them and see where we are on this. Unfortunately, the chart doesn't include Mary's X14 but judging from the X13, X13 Pro and X15, series it's probably between 8 and 12.8 GB/s. This is decent for a notebook computer but considerably below even the old Radeon 9800 Pro 128 meg which has a transfer rate of 21.76. The transfer rate of the nVidia 8600GT is listed at 22.4 GB/s and the 8800GT at 57.6 GB/s. So "if" it's a transfer rate issue, or if this is a major component, since even my 8600 GT card has "some" minor stepping at times while my 8800GT is as smooth as silk, we can expect that Mary would experience the stepping issue with this size MP4 or Flash h.264. Best regards, Lin

Thanks Mary, That's another "slightly" jerky for 256 meg RAM video cards.... Hopefully we will soon have some definitive answers. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, O.K., yes I did get that one, I thought you were talking about a new file, sorry. No question is ever silly, only perhaps silly answers - LOL. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, There are so many factors which influence download speed possibilities that it's usually impossible to say with any certainty what you might get from a given server. First you might want to test your own system to see what optimal download speed is possible. If you follow the link below you "may" be able to find out but I can't be certain. There are many sites on the web which have download speed testing, but here in the states I get the highest readings from this one. Click on "Speed Test" and try all four of the servers to get a baseline. Because you are across the pond, you "may" not get as good a download and upload as you do from local servers, but you can establish some baseline for downloads AND uploads which might help determine if it's at all possible to achieve the speeds you want from any server. http://whatismyip.com/ On my own system I have seen download speeds as low as 50 kbps to as high as 6000 kbps so conditions over the web, the number of different systems involved and so on greatly influence the possibility of download or upload speeds. Upload speeds will always be considerably slower. I find that on my own server at "1 and 1" (my host) I get pretty consistently about 250 kbps on downloads with my radio broadband. It's rare for me to get super high speeds with any consistency, but I do better with Youtube, etc., than with most so they apparently have a pretty optimized system with fewer intermediate links. If you go to a command prompt and ping a URL you can see how many different locations the signal must travel to get to that URL. In case you haven't done this before, go to your system prompt then type (omit the quotations) "ping -a" followed by the URL (you can omit the http://www.) then press Enter. So to ping Youtube you would type (again omit quotations) ping -a youtube.com Doing this will show you the response from each intermediate destination and the time in milliseconds. Of course the longer (larger the number) the less optimal that link. You can get the actual route and times by: "tracert youtube.com" then press Enter. Omit the quotations and substitute your destination URL Just type "ping" followed by Enter to get various syntax... Frankly, I doubt if you will be able to find a host which could guarantee the high download speed you are looking for. The issue is that even if it is extremely fast for you, your viewers may not enjoy the same download speeds depending on their geographical location. Here's another link to get all information on "ping" and how it can help find number and types of intermediate circuits to get to location: http://www.ping127001.com/pingpage.htm Best regards, Lin