Lin Evans

Hi Mary, Would you mind running dxdiag and reporting tha amount of video RAM it shows? I did a search on the ATI site and thought they have a comprehensive list of specifications for the X1400 they do not specify the amount of video RAM. What we need to discover is whether the difference in 250 meg and 500 meg may mean the difference in smooth fades and some animations and "stepped" appearance or whether it's due to some other factor. Best regards, Lin

First, these instructions will be eventually placed in the tutorials section in a more comprehensive manner, but a quick "How To" for those who want to try JPD's mask transitions. First download the zipped templates which are linked near the end of JPD's exe file. Use the right arrow to quick forward to get to the end of the exe demo then use the spacebar to pause while you click on the download link for the templates. Different templates are found in the two different exe files. 1. Create a folder and extract all zipped files in the template into this folder. Open PTE 5.6 and navigate to this folder and open the PTE file. 2. Choose a "Pair" - that is two adjacent images - you don't need the red image between. Hold down the CTRL key and left click the mouse on each of the adjacent two images which have the transition you wish between two slides. Right click on one after it has been selected and copy the two files to the clipboard. 3. Do not exit JPD's template but rather click on File, Open and either open a new file or open the one you wish to use JPD's mask transition on and "Paste" the two copied files into the slide list. 4. Click on the first of the two images to select it then go to Objects and Animations. You will see in the Objects and Animations list a Mask Container (called Conteneur de masque in French) and above this you will see four files each beginning with "Cadre." They are Cadre droit, Cadre gauche, etc. You may delete these unless you want to maintain the red background. These are four small files which provide the red masking for top and sides of the image. If you erase them you will have black above and beside your image. 5. Replace the slide inside the mask container (a number) with your first slide (the slide you want to use to make the transition to your second slide). Just delete JPD's numbered slide, click on the "Conteneur de masque" to select it and import your slide then move it down into the same position previously occupied by JPD's slide. 6. Replace the numbered slide below the mask container with your second slide - the one you want to transition to. 7. Go to slide two (the next slide). You can delete the "rectangle" unless you decided to keep the red background. Now delete the numbered slide and replace it with your own second slide. That's it. Now you will have JPD's mask transition between your own two slides. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, Thanks very much for your excellent report and explanations. I agree, it could well be that 512 meg GPU RAM may be necessary to play the 1600x1200 youtube video at HD. I'm not certain yet what role, if any, system memory may play in the issue. Hopefully, more forum members will try this file and report back on the results. Yes, Windows XP can only use 3326 meg of RAM as reported by dxdiag. Since it comes in even increments of one or gigabyte modules I chose four to get the most out of the system. I didn't get the slideshow you sent - could you send it again please? Best regards, Lin

Did you try different music? If so, you may try reinstalling PTE 5.6. If not try a different MP3 and see if you get the same results. Lin

Hi Ian, The first think I would do is check the music file itself with another player and see if it plays normally. Be sure it is in mp3 format. Normally, if the audio file is good, it will play with no problems by adding it as you have done. I would then suspect the file itself - maybe try another as a test. Best regards, Lin

Hi Tom, Let me address only your first question - the sound recorder I can't comment on. It's not possible to alter a slideshow after it has already been saved as a new executable file. You need to make the changes using PicturesToExe to the PTE file then save your changes and export to an executable file. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mike, You must download JPD's "templates" to use the masks. As Ken and Dave said, you can then use Hawk's method of copy/paste to paste the particular effect in your own show. After pasting the effect with JPD's image you then substitute your own image which applies the effects to a different set of images. Hawk's method consists of opening the original file, which in this case would be JPD's template. You then copy from the slide list and without closing JPD's file, use "File Open" to open your own show. Then "Paste" the file which now resides on the clipboard into your show in the slide list. Next use the PTE 5.6 "change Image File" feature to substitute your own image for JPD's image. I haven't tested this with JPD's templates so you may then have to also substitute your own images in the objects list, or not. Perhaps someone who has tested the templates can comment here. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, I think Pedro means he didn't care why it didn't show up. It didn't show up for me either after I posted it so I edited the original and reinserted the link. I can't understand why I couldn't find JPD's original post either, it doesn't show up in a web search so, I had to search for my replies and I found the link to his pano there. Sometimes the forum software does things which are confusing, but I've learned to accept that and work around it. Best regards, Lin

Hi Pedro, I see it, I can't understand why you don't. It's on the original reply. Best regards, Lin

Hi Pedro, I can't find the original post, but I did find my reply to JPD and a link to his pano. Click on the link below then scroll down three threads and click on the word "Here" in the quote. http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....amp;#entry60808 You don't want to make a conventional 360 pano but rather 360 degrees of straight line beginning to end with the last frame equivalent to the first frame. So you have an extremely wide pano composed of the individual frames beginning with some particular subject and after multiple overlapping stitched frames ending with the same subject. You then insert this very wide stitched straight pano in PTE and scroll from left to right. Best regards, Lin

O.K. guys, Here's what I have discovered. It's apparently a situation of both Flash player iteration AND hardware which is causing the difficulty. All following systems are running Windows XP home edition. I have three systems up and running simultaneously with different video and processing power. My main system is a Dell with 4 meg RAM, an nVidia 8800 GT video card with 512 meg RAM. The second system I have running is a Gateway with two meg RAM and an nVidia 8600 GT OC (overclocked) with 512 Meg RAM. The third system is a notebook with only one meg RAM and a Trident 16 meg video card. All three have the latest iteration of Flash player 10 and the latest Macromedia Shockwave Player. The notebook displays the images well but totally hangs up on the transitions and sometimes just locks between fade of one image and another. Simply not enough power to run the 1600x1200 files with fade transition. The Gateway with a very good 8600 OC GT card plays the animation smoothly but "steps" slightly on "some" but not all fades between images. The Dell with the 8800 GT plays flawlessly both transitions, ripple animations and images. Since the Dell has the most video power and the most system RAM with a slightly more powerful CPU than the gateway, I suspect that the differences we are seeing have more to do with the video card than other hardware. What this leads me to believe is that perhaps 1600x1200 is a bit much for the "average" system, especially if the video card isn't one of the top game cards. What I should do is probably redo the slideshow at perhaps 1024x768 and see if it makes a big difference. The more people who test and report back on their experience, the better we can determine how well this will work for the majority. Please tell us your video card, amount of video RAM, pc processor, etc. All this information can be easily obtained by going to the "start" then "run" and type in "dxdiag" without the quotation marks then "run". After the diagnostic has run, click on the "System" tab to get the CPU and RAM then on the "Display" tab to get information about the Video card and video RAM. Knowing these details and how the 1600x1200 slideshow performs on your system will go a long way toward helping decide optimal output for Youtube to present your slideshow to the most people. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, The only difference between Home Basic and Home Premium which appear to have any relevance is that Home Premium say it can "create high definition movies". I doubt this is really an issue with installation and I think we have several users who are using Vista Home Basic edition. Apparently Vista Home Basic and Vista Business don't have Movie Maker HD or Movie Maker included. I "think" you must have and be logged in with "administrator" rights to install. Someone who is using Vista might confirm or deny this.... Best regards, Lin

It will work fine on Vista Home Edition so the problem may be with your "rights." Could you provide a step-by-step on when the installation fails and any messages you see. Best regards, Lin

Hi Frank, I'm just wondering if you are perhaps using non-linear functions with your keyframes. If you copy and paste then change images then change keyframe positions, unfortunately you may need to set all keyframes back to non-linear before the change or you will probably experience unexpected results. This is a difficult issue to contend with from a programming perspective. I too would like to be able to move not only all keyframes by a certain percentage or time, but do it selectively. Hopefully, in a future version we may be able to do this, but for now the best we can do is to move "all" keyframes by the "scale keyframes" method. This, however works best when the keyframes are linear. When changing non-linear keyframes one at a time it gets really tedious. I've found the "best" way is to simply set everything back to linear, move the keyframes then reset the non-linear (smooth, etc.) functions "after" all moving of keyframes has been completed. Best regards, Lin

Hi Carol, Thanks very much for the feedback. Not having an HD player, I was not able to test the Pinnacle Software, so I'm really glad to hear that it does work as advertised. This definitely will be an inexpensive way of producing HD quality output for clients who have HD or BluRay players. The cost of BluRay media is still way out there in the U.S., I couldn't justify buying it even if I had a BluRay burner. Players, on the other hand, are down in the $200 USD range here and many folks who have widescreen HD television receivers are now purchasing them which should quickly drive the price even lower. Unfortunately I don't have a wide screen HD television yet but hope to when our employment situation and the economy improves. It it always great to have access to the forums where people can share their experiences and we can all profit from it. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, Thanks for the feedback, Obviously, it's either a player issue or setup issue of some kind because the playback is really very, very good - about the same as the executable on my system and apparently on a number of other systems. The first thing I would try would be to download and install the latest Flash player from Adobe. It almost sound as if your system and Jose's system are not handling h.264 correctly. To double check this, you might make a 1600x1200 quick sample from PTE of perhaps three slides and test playback on your system from the C: drive to see how smoothly that plays the fades. If that works correctly, then try uploading it to Youtube and play it back in HD and see if you get the same response. I'm betting that the problem is the Flash player so that would be my first test. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mark, Tom, Thanks for the feedback. We need to find out what the problem is with Jose's situation. It seems he has plenty of hardware resources so must be a configuration or player issue. Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, The dpi (ppi) is really immaterial. This is simply an EXIF header which tells a print device the print density intended for print. It really has zero effect on display images whether that be projector or screen. You could have the dpi set at 10 dpi or 1200 dpi and the image will be absolutely the same. Image size is determined by the number of pixels in the horizontal and vertical aspect. This seems to be one of the least understood issues in imagery. To demonstrate this, I'm going to post two images which you can take into photoshop and test for yourself. One will have the dpi set at 10 dpi and the other at 1200 dpi. You will see absolutely zero difference. The difference in photoshop is only how large the prints would be "if" you used the EXIF header to determine this. The image quality and display size are identical. First the 10 dpi (ppi) image: http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sampl...friend10dpi.jpg Next the 1200 dpi (ppi) image: http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sampl...iend1200dpi.jpg Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, Something is not right with your playback of the HD mode. From your description that standard mode fades are smooth but image quality bad (this is normal) but the HD fades and water animation is "stepped" it would appear to be a bandwidth issue. However, since you waited for the full download before playing we can rule that out as an issue. This leaves us with an issue apparently of bitrate or possibly your player not functioning quite correctly with h.264. I can assure you that the HD playback is very smooth on my system and fades and water drop animation quite smooth, actually there is litttle difference between my executable and the HD playback over Youtube on this show for me. First, have you downloaded the latest Flash implementation from Adobe? Second, what is your web default player? I'm certain there is a simple explanation for the great difference in what we see. You may want to read this: http://www.aweber.com/b/1CiS3 Ken posted the link to the above and it might help wring out the problems you are experiencing. Your playback of the HD videos on Youtube "should" be very, very good. I suspect it's a player issue rather than a hardware issue because almost any decent video card should be able to handle 1600x1200 playback smoothly without issue. I changed my default web player to the HomeCinema one suggested by Igor, but I think for the Youtube playbacks of HD that the default is to the resident Flash player. To get the playback right I suspect you need to be sure you have the very latest Flash player installed correctly. Sometimes it's necessary to uninstall the old player before installing the new one per the link above. Perhaps someone else who has watched this show in HD on Youtube can comment on their experience. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jose, Actually, fades are that way with Flash and both Youtube and Vimeo convert the very excellent MP4 h.264 to Flash FLV. This is one reason I suggested looking at the Transparent Player which supports streaming MP4 h.264 The water effects actually look quite good on my system - they are not really "bubbles" but circular ripples from a "drop" of water. I suspect your broadband is responsible for them not looking normal. Out of curiosity, are you certain you were watching the show in full screen HD? The reason I ask is that I went back and checked again and it looks pretty good even on the fades. The really "jerky" fades are at low resolution, low bitrates. Web presentations can't equal a good executable, but the HD on Youtube allows users to display slideshows without fancy animations in very good quality and that's about as good as it gets over the web unless you want to use very small images. The essence is that there are trade-offs all around and PTE can put out HD resolutions which the competition can't match at this time over the web. I don't thing the output of Youtube is low quality for internet video at all. I think internet video is all actually low quality compared to BluRay or HD. HD on the web is in its infancy and only if and when broadband can support much higher bitrates will we be likely to see seriously good web video. I would agree that executables are far better, but executables present problems as well. They are not cross-platform compatible so people with MacIntosh systems can't see them. Also the trend today is to use these web video services such as Vimeo and Youtube. No, they re not nearly as good as we would like, but even someone with a slow broadband can see high resolution images this way where they could not do so with DVD, etc. I know of no way to split the executable. What you can do is divide the show by copying a number of slides to a different show. You would have to handle the background sound manually and then perhaps have one show call another via either a menu or last slide calling next show. Best regards, Lin

As those who have been following the progression of output to Vimeo and Youtube discussions know, Youtube supports very high resolution HD output. One of the new features on PTE 5.6 is the addition of "custom" output for Youtube. For those photographers who don't wish to crop their slides to 16:9 aspect ratio but still would like high definition, high resolution output on Youtube, you can now set resolutions as high as 1920x1200 for your output. I find 1600x1200 works very, very well and is equivalent in optical resolution to 1920x1080 (2 megapixel). I have posted a slideshow using PTE to upload to Youtube at 1600x1200 resolution. I believe it works very, very well, especially is you don't need pan, zoom and rotate. As you will see in the slidshow it is possible to have some smooth "animation" if you do it correctly. For broadband - click on the link below then on the "watch in HD" at the lower right. Then click on the full screen icon and watch in full screen. If your display supports 1600x1200 you will see the show in full resolution and if you are watching on 1024x768 it will automatically downsample for display. I suggest starting the show then hit the "pause" icon and let the "gas gage" move ahead a couple inches depending on your broadband connect speed. This will avoid stopping for download to "catch up." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzmfXwJCFnE Thanks again to Igor for implementing this possibility without having to jump through hoops to get this resolution! I think it's a great feature for PTE and to my knowledge not shared by the competition. Best regards, Lin

Another consideration which we haven't seemed to discuss yet is how useful a 1080p (16:9 aspect ratio) is to the photographer. I realize that video cameras are moving in this direction, but digital still cameras are still well established with 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratios and that is something which is not likely to change in the near future. Because there are literally millions if not billions of photographs both digital and analog out there and millions more being taken each day which are captured in 3:2 or 4:3 aspect ratio, why are projectors being manufactured to display 16:9 aspect ratio at 1920x1080 (approximately 2 megapixels) rather than the much more useful (in my opinion) 1600x1200 pixel resolution which is also about two megapixels but more useful to the photographer. Are these projectors primarily aimed at the video camcorder user rather than the still photographer? Yes, one dSLR, the Canon 5D Mark II, can capture video in 1080p while the Nikon D90 does video in 720p. However, this trend is not something which every camera manufacturer embraces, nor is it all that great from what I'm seeing in terms of versatility, etc. A number of camcorders can now capture 1080p and this would seem to be the market which projector people are catering to. I believe my experience is shared by the vast majority of photographers in that I dislike trying to crop my images to fit an aspect ratio requiring me to cut off significant portions of my subject whether done by post capture crop or by alignment in PTE. This wrecks many photos and forces me to either shoot very wide thus lowering my usable resolution (throwing away pixels) or carefully pick and choose from among thousands of my existing photos for only those amenable to a crop to 16:9. Bottom line is that I won't be purchasing any projector unless manufacturers produce a projector which can not only handle the new 16:9 aspect ratio which seems to be forced on the consumer, but also HD resolutions such as 1600x1200 which fit the use model of the still photographer. In addition, manufacturers need to fix the issues of jerkiness in horizontal pans. If I can pan a wide panorama smoothly on an LCD monitor or on a CRT monitor, then I want to be able to do this on an LCD projector or no sale for me. As for photo clubs, I would recommend budgeting for a large screen plasma display rather than an expensive LCD projector which in no way equals the image quality.... Just my thoughts.... Lin

Hi Josh, Thanks much for the great information about Transparent Player! I'm looking forward to trying it as soon as possible. Best regards, Lin

Fantastic product and great support. I want to take this opportunity to congratulate all who worked tirelessly to create this fantastic tool which we all love and support!! Now take some time off and enjoy the fruits of your labor! We, the users of your program, appreciate your dedication and your willingness to accept input and suggestions from your users which are reflected in the product. This is most unusual in the software business and is greatly appreciated. Again, CONGRATULATIONS !!! Lin