Lin Evans

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

Hi Xaver, Actually a good idea to bring it to developer's attention again - sometimes these suggestions get lost in the great number of posts on the suggestions page. I think Igor has been considering this for some time and had planned to implement it in a future version, but since many are pushing the limits of both PTE and hardware it's probably a good idea to do it sooner rather than later. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, That means that your project "should" be feasible providing that hardware limts are not exceeded. Download the file recovery software from my previous link and let us know how that works. You should be able to recover the last save without issue. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, Let me sort it out - meanwhile click the link on my post above to download free file recovery software. This "should" be able to recover your PTE file from the hard disk. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, If you do not add any code or files to your hard disk it will be possible to recover the file even if it was deleted by Vista. There are myriad disk recovery programs which can be used to recover files deleted - they still reside on the hard disk if not overwritten. Some of these are freeware and work very well. Usually the first letter of the file name is dropped but the extension and the rest of the file name are complete. Give me a few moments and I'll get you a link.... Try this one: Recover files link: Best regards, Lin

Probably a good idea, see my post from: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....amp;hl=autosave Lin

Hi Peter, I'm certain it will be possible to recover your PTE file but meanwhile it appears you have reached a hardware limitation, not a PTE limitation. If you have the time, could you send me a sample of the objects you are using both for your red and yellow squares as well as the "map". I will check them and possibly offer suggestions on optimization. Something exceeded your available memory while you were constructing the objects and keyframes. Available memory is constrained by not only the amount of RAM you have in your system but also by processes running in the background. If you do a CTRL/ALT/DEL to bring up the task manager, look at the "Performance" tab and see how much available memory you have. You may want to stop some optional running processes to give you more memory while working on this project to prevent this from happening in the future. From your description I see nothing to indicate that you should not be able to do this project but again, depending on your individual hardware. If you send me the files I will be glad to see if there is a way to decrease the memory requirements sutstantially. Did you download and run the sample demo I linked, and did it run properly? That sample has over 400 objets and over 1200 keyframe so will be a good test of whether there is some issue with hardware. Best regards, Lin

There is no practical limit for the number of objects for PTE but there are practical limits for hardware resources. JPD has run puzzle demos with over 600 objects in simultaneous motion. In one of my samples I have over 400 PNG objects and over 1200 keyframes for one sequence and it runs on even a 32 meg video card so I doubt that you will find practical limits for your expressed project as long as you use good judgment concerning file dimensions, etc. Text objects use less memory than PNG text, but this isn't really a practical consideration - you should have no problems with what you want to do using rasterized PNG. Download this sample and run it (turn down your sound because the music is "loud!"). In the sequence where the Moon circles the rotating Earth there are over 400 png objects and over 1200 keyframes used. (about 53 meg) http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/demos/3d.zip Lin

It's not an XP issue, it's an issue of resources. If you are using some of Dom's more advanced animations it takes a decent video card to handle the motion smoothly, especially if you are using larger images. The problem is that many older laptops simply do not have the video power to handle the animations. The amount of video RAM isn't the issue, it's the GPU (graphical processing unit). Top nVidia cards have no problems with even 128 meg of RAM but many of them used in laptops just don't have enough power to run the animations smoothly. Again, it has nothing to do with XP. "Any" animations done in PTE will run perfectly under XP or Vista providing there is sufficient resources for the type animation "and" size of images. Create your shows on the XP machine and pay particular attention to the size of the original images. Some of the most sophisticated animations possible have been created with older XP machines with only 32 meg video cards but the authors pay particular attention to the RAM requirements and don't try to load large original images. Keep in mind when you are creating PNG files that the transparent areas are not "empty" but are very much part of file size. For example, create a small PNG object with a large transparent background and the same but trim all excess transparency. Compare the file sizes and you will be very surprised. I created two thirty two piece puzzle samples to point this out. They each have nearly identical total file sizes as executable but one will run on virtually "any" PC while the other taxes even the extremely powerful video cards. The difference is that in one the puzzle pieces have all excess transparency trimmed and the other uses full size frames but nearly all transparency with the only visible part being the puzzle pieces. When these files are compressed they have virtually the same size but when they expand in memory the differences are tremendous. The way compression works is not always understood well. For example, let's say you have a jpg file which is 4000x3000 pixels but only 1.5 megabytes in size. When that file is loaded into memory it expands to the identical size as an 8 bit tiff of the same pixel dimensions. It could easily end up being as large as 12 megabytes. So the user loads a few of these as objects thinking that not too much memory is required but when they expand in memory to the full 8 bit uncompressed size the memory requirements overwhelm the video. The secret then for running a smooth PTE show on a limited resource computer is to keep the file dimensions in pixels (not file size in megabytes) down to 1024x768 or so. The "secret" then is to prepare your slideshow on the "weaker" computer rather than on the Vista computer which has greater resources. If if runs smoothly on the resource challenged computer it will work fine on the other. Again - it has absolutely "nothing" to do with XP or Vista but with available resources, pixel dimension, etc. Best regards, Lin

Since PTE uses industry standard keyboard commands any device which works with PowerPoint "should" work equally as well with PTE. Lin

Hi folks, I don't get super excited about software other than PTE very often, but this program is worth having a look at! Xara Xtreme 4 is a difficult product to really put into a category. It does many things but essentially it facilitates creation of 3D text, Flash animation, animated GIF text, text extrusion, fancy text, etc., etc. The new version even lets you create web pages with truly outstanding features. If you have ever tried to use standard web creation software to wrap text around objects you will really love this program. If you have struggled with Photoshop or other graphic mannipulation software to do perspective shifts on text or images you will love this program. Xara Xtreme 4 (standard version) is a dynamite tool to help spruce up your PTE slideshows. Want PNG text in the StarWars genere? You can struggle along with Photoshop to get the perspective like you want or do it with Xara Xtreme 4 literally in "seconds" Create custom extruded text with custom color, custom lights, any shape you can imagine! Literally! Export images to transparent background PNG, Animated GIF, Flash code, you name it. Create a web page in minutes which would take an hour in DreamWeaver or other web software. Change the perspective on your images WYSIWYG then export the image to a transparent background PNG while you are trying to remember how to do it in Photoshop - LOL. Truly a remarkable product. Even if you don't want to purchase this product you owe it to yourself to go to their website and have a look. I downloaded the 30 day trial and when I can afford the $89.95 USD price will definitely purchase this one. I'm impressed with what this software can do to facilitate things I do in PTE. If you give presentations, etc., with text you can't help but love this one!! Be sure to watch the many movies on the link - incredible stuff folks! Lin Link to Xara Xtreme 4 home page

Just a note to finish this thread - as said by the Genie (Igor) from the bottle "Master, Your Wish is My Command" LOL - Igor has included a wonderful grid complete with "snap to grid" feature in Beta 8. The colors are adjustable, the size and offset are adjustable - choice of pixels or rectangular shape - in all a perfect solution to what has been asked for. Go to Objects and Animations screen and click on the small blue grid to the right along the top line of icons. Beside the grid is a small blue arrow. Click the arrow to get access to the adjustments for color, offset, choice of "snap to grid", etc. Thank you Igor!! Best regards, Lin

Hi Cor, I see - but did it "ever" work differently? In 5.1 it works the same way. The choice seems to be for the text "block" rather than for individual lines. If you want one left and one right it requires two text objects I believe. I don't remember in 5.0 (I no longer have it on my computers) but I do have 5.1 and it works the same as 5.5 beta 8 for me. Best regards, Lin

Regardless of how one feels about this, the "cat's out of the bag". Microsoft has created a dangerous situation by programming a "back door" around their own so called "security". To make it "easy" for Police, etc., who have posession of one's computer to gain access and bypass Operating System security, Microsoft has created a device with the "intent" of helping catch criminals by allowing police investigators to bypass security and gain access to information on a computer. The sad truth is that these devices will soon be in the hands of criminals as well as police. Locksmiths can use tools to pick your lock - you are not supposed to be able to purchase lock picking devices unless you are a legitimate locksmith. Guess what? Criminals laugh because these devices help make easy access to your homes and any criminal with more than a single digit IQ has one. Unfortunately it will be the same for these devices. How long do you think it will be before these are in the hands of criminals who will only need a few seconds with your computer to gain access to private data you now believe to be "secure?" It's long been suspected that Microsoft had programmed "back doors" around security into their operating systems - now "the cat's out of the bag" and this has been confirmed. Read about it here: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/micr..._msftlaw29.html and here: http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/29/1441215 If this information is accurate, it represents a real threat to continuing privacy and security on your system... Lin

Let me just add my $.02 - LOL. Peter is absolutely correct..... Remember, the Left, Center and Right only move the text within the text box. If there is a single word, you will see no effect. If you create multiple lines of text of different text length then highlight one line which is shorter than the others and apply "Left, Right or Center" you will see that text line do as expected within the confines of the text box bounded by the green rectangle. So the feature works as designed - but one must keep in mind that it doesn't move the text box, it moves the text "inside" the text box. If there is no space to the left or right within the text box itself, there will be no effect because there is nowhere to move the text. When there is space created by multiple lines of text of various width "within" the text box, the Left, Center and Right are applicable. Best regards, Lin

Hi JPD, Click the little "Grid" icon on top rather than turn it on with CTRL G and you will see complete controls for position, size, color, etc., for grid. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, That is very confusing. I believe that part of the official user guide needs further attention and a change. The way it works is if you do "not" separate the keypoints then when a non-linear motion such as smooth is chosen, the motion will "only" reflect keypoint one and the end keypoint no matter what animations you have programmed in between. For example, if you zoom in, then pan, then zoom out and pan again and don't separate keypoints, your animation will simply be zoom in and "pan again" and will ignore the keypoints in between the first and last. Obviously, that's not what was intended. So the instructions in the "unofficial" user guide in this case are correct. I suspect that the translator made a mistake in the "official" user guide and the word "glued" should be substituted for "separated". I will bring Igor's attention to this. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, Download and watch my tutorial on Non-Linear here: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7901 Essentially you do your animations in regular linear mode then go back and click on "Smooth" for all three (Pan, Zoom, Rotate) which is explained in the AVI tutorial. Next you click on "Setting Up" and you then click on each "separate here". Once you fully understand non-linear motion you may want to experiment with the effects possible by leaving some keyframes glued and some separated, but if you want "smooth" movement between keypoints you "must" separate them. Best regards, Lin

Hi Shirley, SP2 was a major improvemet to Win XP - do it with confidence... Lin