Lin Evans

Hi Dom, Looks great - excellent effect! Best regards, Lin

Hi Phil, Beautiful job! Lin

Hi Ron, Try Photoshop Filter, Texture, Texturizer, Texture Canvas, Scaling 55, Relief 3, light - top left and you will be pretty close. Lin

Beautiful shots of an intriguing place Fred. The only thing I would change would be to perhaps put an ending descriptive script to tell the viewers more about the exact locations. Very well done with appropriate background music! Best regards, Lin

Hi Ray, He's not creating a video but rather playing the executable which was created at the native resolution of his TV being used as a direct display device. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jeff, Yep, we'll cover it on the next release for sure... Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, The 1024x574 is for people who want to maintain 1024 as their width at 16:9 for DVD purposes. To match higher resolution monitors using the native resolution works fine as long as the video can keep up. Actually most wide monitors are 16:10 rather than the 16:9 for wide television displays so a bit more height is needed in the crop. One way to determine what will work best for your individual monitor is to do as you have and crop to the display size then go into Objects and Animations and set up for Original size and 100% on the zoom. If the image doesn't completely fill the screen then increase the zoom one percent at a time until it does. Take the figure (101%, 102%, whatever it takes to fill the screen) then increment your crop by that percentage based on the original dimensions and you should be close enough. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, There are good reasons for this as it presently is I believe. Early on in the evolution of version 5.0 betas all objects carried progressive names such as "object1, object2". There was always the option of renaming these objects but this did not affect the real file names. The "advantage" of being able to rename objects in the objects list without affecting their real file name can be best seen when doing very complex animations where being able to give certain objects an easily remembered name representing their proper order is quite helpful. For example, when creating a puzzle effect with many pieces having some alpha-numeric naming makes placement very easy. Imagine trying to assemble a 200 piece puzzle consisting of conventional file names. By being able to assign meaningful names to the objects it's very easy to keep track of individual components and reassemble them after scrambling the pieces. This, of course, would not be apparent unless one were interested in complex animations and this feature would perhaps seem strange, but it is very helpful at times to aid in keeping track of long lists of objects with similar names. Best regards, Lin

Hi Xaver, My clients are all over the world, in fact more in Japan and Asia than in the US so please dub down the politics, it has no place here. The international art community have traditionally used high resolution imagery and sophisticated electronics regardless of where they are located. We have clients in Bali who use equipment which would be the envy of most of us regardless of where we live. The fact that computers are less expensive in the US than in some other countries has little to do with where they are made. Because of the low prices here and regardless of why, there are numerous reasonably powerful systems available in the US and therefore fewer older systems with lower performance video cards making it less likely that shows created with little regard for resources will be problematic. The majority of computer monitors were traditionally made in Taiwan as were most early PC's. IBM was perhaps the only company which originally "assembled" their Taiwan made components in the US. Don't be overly sensitive about unimportant things. The point was simply that different users have different needs and different assumptions so PTE allows all of us to create shows which suit our particular purposes. The discussions we had about creating slideshows with sensitivity to those with fewer resources took place before you became a member of the forum. If you are interested I would be glad to find the links for you to read. This forum is not a place for knee jerk reactions to perceived slights. Let's just forget the politics and concentrate on helping each other make PTE the success it deserves to have without silly bickering over who has what. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jeff, PTE does is for you. Notice that the filename changes to "text.png" or whatever so the program automatically senses that you have rasterized the text to PNG and substitutes all appropriate animations , etc., associated with the original text with the new png object. However, note that all changes made in wording, etc., must be done before rasterization because a stand-alone object is created so rasterization should necessarily be the "last" step. This also means that if you create second or third text objects you will have to give them different names because the default name is "text.png" so the program will ask you if you want to "overwrite" the original. If you do overwrite, then you will have issues. I guess there is no perfect solution but the way it works is very convenient because you can then take the png fle into Photoshop or other editor and modify it as you deem necessary with special "effects", etc. Best regards, Lin

Hi Michel, This goes back to a thread a while ago when the discussion was how to use resources to make shows compatible with a wide range of systems. It was not meant in any way as singling out "France" in particular as having older systems, but rather referred to a statement made by one of our French users (Patrick) who works I believe for a large hospital where the majority of the systems in use there have very limited video resources so that many of the shows PTE users were creating did not work correctly. In US home use there are wide variations in computer resources with some still using systems with Win 98 installed and having also limited resources, however in the US computers are apparently on average much less expensive than in some other countries so the norm here is to replace them on average every three years or so making an abundance of them with more resources available. This tends to mean that users here often create their slideshows with little concern for resources because they expect that most who play them will have adequate video power to handle large files with PZR. Obviously, this is not always the case but it has not been perceived by many as being much of an issue. Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, If I understand you correctly you would like to see some "automated" choice so that three conditions could be met: 1. a display size choice could be preserved such as 1000x400 pixels 2. a frame of several pixels in the users choice of color could be maintained 3. a background scaled to fit the display could be used which would prevent the extra display area on the display device from showing at all times. Though these conditions can presently be easily met by someone having a knowledge of PTE, it would be advantageous for the novice user to simply select from a "menu" to apply such a set of conditions. I would agree that this could be an advantage but for me certainly not at the expense of giving up the option of scaling to fit the available display. I think we tend to desire things which fit our individual use models and our slideshow audience. For my own purposes locking the display for one of my shows to 1000x400 pixels would generally not work well at all. If my clients typically used 1024x768 displays then that would work beautifully, but in my case the "norm" is 2560x1600 and the extremes are 3840x2400 pixel displays. I have several clients who use ultra high resolution displays for my slideshows which don't use PZR and a number who use displays set to 2560x1600 for my PZR shows. As you could imagine, a 1000x400 pixel show locked to those dimensions looks rather like an elongated postage stamp on an ultra high resolution system. If the original images used in the slideshow are downsampled to fit an available display of say 1024x768 they still look very good. On the other hand if a slideshow consisting of originals at 1024x768 is upsampled by PTE to a display resolution of 2560x1600 it definitely looses a great deal of impact. So my strategy is to prepare my shows using an average resolution I expect to find on my client's systems. If I were preparing my slideshows for a different audience then I would probably do it quite differently. The bottom line is that a software developer must try to meet the needs of a rather broad audience. The general trend today in display resolutions is upward so I believe "choice" and "options" must be maintained to serve the trend. It's difficult for Igor because his products span a wide audience in multiple countries. For example, in France there are apparently larger numbers of older systems in current use (per Patrick) and making slideshows the way I do for my gallery art clients in the U.S. would certainly not work since the majority of my shows would not even run on the average computer there. On the other hand if I made shows which would work correctly on the majority of systems in France they would be rather unsuitable for my clients here. So I find the present options offered by PTE to be very good for my own purposes even though I fully realize that for others with different needs there may be valid reasons for wanting different options. Best regards, Lin

1024x574 pixels Lin

Hi Barry, I'm a bit confused. Isn't that what the "Original" mode in the Common Tab of Objects and Animations provides? The "disable scaling" provision is a universal command affecting all images so would defeat the provision of having a background which would fit all resolutions. You can make a background which would effectively fit all resolutions simply by making it large enough in pixel dimensions to cover any currently used screen display resolutions and use this background for all slides. The "Original" mode then could be applied to images which were created, cropped, whatever to get 1000 pixels by 400 pixels. The 1000 by 400 pixel images would remain exactly that dimension on any monitor while the background which was created large enough to cover any and all display resolutions would provide the background. A black jpg image of perhaps 1008 pixels by 408 pixels and set to "Original" mode would reside behind the jpg images and the background on the layer behind the 1008 by 408 pixel frame which would provide a 4 pixel black frame around the main slide image. Wouldn't this satisfy the conditions you need? Best regards, Lin

You wrote:-..."With animations I meant Pan, Zoom and Rotate effects"...you mislead me using the word "Animation". Hi Brian, Why confusion over this term? That's why it's called "Objects and Animations". I'm pretty sure it's an O.K. use of the term "Animation" when you have PZR effects... Best regards, Lin

Hi Jena, The difference with PTE 5.x and 4.x is that with the new graphical engine rather than a static image when there is any pan, zoom or rotate intermediate images at up to 60 images per second are created and displayed sequentially to provide the intermediate frames necessary to perform the PZR effect. Even if only one image has PZR in it the entire engine is switched on. With older computers which have minimal hardware resources and especially video resources, combining the display of high frame rate jpgs with original sized images simply overwhelms the resources on older systems. With the majority of newer computers being delivered with Vista as an operating system and with Vista absolutely requiring high performance video and more RAM the problems we see and the precautions we must take for compatibility with older systems will become a moot issue in the near furture, but right now keeping the image dimensions down to around 1028x683 will usually result in quite satisfactory performance on theses older systems. Of course with 4.4x and older vesions of PTE there is no problems running even full resolution slides because we deal with only a single image rather than upward of 60 images per second and even the older hardware can handle that without strain. By keeping the file dimension down to 1024x683 (1024x768 on most fixed lens digicams) it's possible to still have beautiful animated shows which will run on even older systems with only 32 meg video cards. It just requires making lower resolution copies. Because PTE can automatically adjust size to fill the screen for the display environment, the only time it's really necessary to load an occasional larger image is when really deep zooms are being used. Otherwise there is no advantage at all in using original resolution slides. So the small inconvenience of having to resample the frames for the slideshow are offset by the amazing qality of imagery possible with this great new program. I think you will find that downsampling the originals will be sufficient to give you perfect slideshows even on the older machines. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jena, This isn't a problem with PTE, it's a problem either with the hardware you are transfering to or with the amount of resource requirement your original is created with. More information is needed to understand the issue. Are you creating a DVD or trying to play the executable slideshow on a CD? CD players and computers differ greatly in their ability to run animations. The fact that the slideshows play correctly on the computer they were created on is proof that the problem isn't the program created but rather the environment it's being transferred to. For example, if you are using original high resolution images and trying to run animations on machines with insufficient video GPU or video memory you will run into real problems. If you could please say what the pixel dimensions of your origina images as you have them in the slideshow are it would be a place to start. We run PTE slideshows created with 5.0, 5.1 and betas of 5.5 on literally hundreds of computers with absolutely no problems but we create the shows for the least common denominator. That is we keep the image dimensions down to 1024x683 for the originals and we don't try to run slideshows from the CD but rather create a menu to allow the user to transfer the executables to their computer before being run. To better understand how to do this it might be helpful for you to download and read the tutorials and the User Guides and perhaps watch some of the many AVI tutorials provided. If you can give specific details there are many here on the forum who can help you construct your slideshows so they will be amenable to nearly any PC. Perhaps if you could post a zipped PTE file from one you are having problems with at customer sites we could have a look and help sort out the problem areas. Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, They won't look wrong when converted to DVD and played back on a Widescreen TV "If" you use the correct aspect ratio on both TV and DVD encoding "and" the correct cable. Many times the "squashed" look is a result of using an improper cable or a combination of improper settings "and" improper cable between the DVD player and television. Here's a good reference: http://forums.xbox-scene.com/index.php?showtopic=408961 Best regards, Lin

Hi Bryan, Yes, it gives you the driver version and date which can be referenced on the NVIDIA web site to see if there are any updates available. From the date (April 3, 2008) it would appear that this is a very new driver so if a check with NVIDIA shows it to be the latest version that can be perhaps ruled out as a possible issue. It may be worth while running the tests as described under "notes" (to test 3D functionality) just to be certain that everything operates normally. If no problems are detected with the tests then we can look elsewhere for the culprit. The suggestion to run on of the shows without sound is a good one. As strange as it may seem, sound drivers can often influence video so a quick way to test that possibility is as suggested to recompile one of your shows which malfunctions without background music or sound and run it. If it runs smoothly and doesn't stop then half the possibilities have just been eliminated. Best regards, Lin

Hi Geoff, 1080P is essentially two megapixel resolution so optimal image quality for non-zoomed frames would be satisfied by a two megapixel original (1600x1200 or other combo equaling 2 megapixel). If doing tight zooms from the original then more resolution would be needed to avoid greatly exceeding a 1:1 crop. These values would pertain to an original executable show displayed on a wide screen 16:9. When converted to DVD at PAL or NTSC the images are going to end up at true low resolution (in terms of image dimensions) unless you have a Bluray player (or HD player - but now obsolete). In such case the original assumption as experessed above for the executable apply. Otherwise there is no advantage at all of the originals being larger than 1024x683 (1024x768) assuming they are coming from a digital camera. The same reasoning applies to use higher resolution originals for deep zooms. Although the final image as displayed on the 1080p or 720p display will be at NTSC or PAL resolution, the rendering is accomplished from the original. On a deep zoom if the original is 1024x682 for example, and the deep zoom is rendered from that point the final interpolated image will actually be upsampled greatly whereas if the original frame for the deep zoom is at high resolution the deep zoom may end up as only the equivalent of a 1:1 crop thus preserving the image quality. Think of it this way. If you first downsample a 10 megapixel capture to 800x600 pixels then zoom back in to the field of view of a 1:1 crop from the original but still containing 800x600 pixels, you loose a great deal of detail and resolution. On the other hand if you simply crop an 800x600 field of view from the 10 megapixel original you preserve all the optical resolution from the original capture. What we must keep in mind is the difference between true "optical resolution" and "display resolution" which unfortunately is a very poor use of the term "resolution". Primarily because of the marketing mistake of equating file dimensions (pixel count) to resolution we have created a nightmare for general understanding. We do not diminish true optical resolution at all when we "crop" an area from a high resolution capture even though the file dimensions of the crop may be very small. For example there are magnitudes of difference between an original capture made with a 640x480 camera and a 640x480 image cropped from a 21 megapixel original capture. They both have the file dimensions of 640x480 meaning they have identical pixel counts but the "details" described by those pixels within that pixel count are vastly different. The bottom line is that there is no advantage in rendering from a greater pixel count than the eventual display size in pixels "except" for those images which will be viewed as a deep zoom in. In such cases there are myriad reasons for starting with a high resolution original because each intermediate image is "rendered" in a hardware rendering process from the "original". So to get optimal results, don't assume all images in your show need start at the same pixel count. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, I have discussed this issue with Igor and what is happening it that most likely the 2 gigabyte limitation is being overwhelmed by the Undo history. As we know, PTE has a "virtually" unlimited undo feature but this feature requires considerably more memory reserve that a first impression would indicate based on the file sizes, etc. So the answer is that when we are working with many object on such a scale we can close the project and re-open or temporarily open an new project and add one slide which frees up the memory by releasing memory held for Undo. He will implement the auto-save feature which should avert this disaster of loosing the PTE file in the future. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bryan, If you click on "Start" then "Run" and type in "dxdiag" and then click on "O.K" the computer will run a diagnostic. When it finishes click on the "Display" tab and report back on what it says... Best regards, Lin

Go to the slide where you want the music to stop. In the customize slide on the Music Tab put a check in "Play Music for This Slide" but leave the list blank. The music will play until reaching this slide then stop. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jim, PTE can handle up to 2 gigabytes of total file size. The "number" of photos isn't an issue but the executable can't be larger than 2 gigabytes. But for the sake of convenience it would seem logical to break up the family history into several segments. Even if you only alloted ten seconds per image, 2500 photos would take almost seven hours to watch. Most people won't set still for more than a couple hours at a time when watching a movie before they loose interest...... Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, I must apologize because I should have suggested that you close and re-open PTE during your construction of multi-object O&A shows because the same thing has happened to me in the past. I don't know how feasible it might be, but if possible Igor might consider an optional tab to save file then "flush buffers" or save and quickly close and reopen PTE because your observation is absolutely correct. When I constructed the +400 object +1200 keyframe animation I didn't do it in one time sequence but would work an hour, save work, shut down PTE and check email, etc., then resume. At the time I made the initial suggestion about "auto-save" it was prompted by just this experience. I'll ask Igor about the possibility of doing this and refer him to this thread... Best regards, Lin