Lin Evans

Hi Al, One additional thing is to avoid wma format music at least for now. One of our posers was getting a blank (black) screen when loading 4.47 pte into beta 6 and the cause turned out to simply be the music - otherwise everyting worked perfectly. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, Actually, there is no qualitative difference in our experience in using Photoshop (5, 7, CS - we don't have CS2) and using IrfanView - essentially the same algorithms are available in both. The primary advantage in my experience of using IrfanView is speed and convenience. Creating a Photoshop action can greatly speed up doing 500 images in Photoshop, but IrfanView already has batch processing, auto sharpening (you set the amount), automated file rename, etc., which makes it ever more convenient. It's definitely easier, especially for those without serious Photoshop experience, to use a program like IrfanView to do batch resizing. Yes the high resolution moniotors are very nice but complex (we have one) and tend to spoil the user in terms of image quality expectations. Our medium resolution monitors (Nokia 445Xi) which have screen displays at 2048x1536 pixels are plenty good for any practical purposes. Actually I keep mine at 1024x768 most of the time because my 64 year old eyes are not as good as they onece were - LOL. Best regards, Lin

Hi Catherine, Unfortunately, the only feasible way to recover the images is via screen capture software. There are a number of good screen capture utilities available and if you have reasonable display time (at least a couple seconds) you can definitely recover the images, but sadly only at screen resolution. If you know what the resolution was on the originals, then the best way would be to play the show on a high resolution system so the higher the display resolution the more likely it will be to capture higher resolution frames. One of our forum members in Thailand, Granot, has a very nice screen capture utility availabe called "Restore PTE" which automatically names the images (1, 2, 3, etc.) and stores them in a separate folder so you can very quickly capture a large number by simply pressing a key as they appear. Here's a link: http://www.thailandphotoalbum.com/ Scroll down and look at the very top of the last group (the largest one) of programs.... Best regards, Lin

Probably you will want to resample the originals down to a more usable size. The highest resolution monitors built today are 9 megapixel so unless the owners are using a $6,000 monitor to display the slideshows, you would get better results on the executables by doing a batch resample using something like IrfanView to get the image sizes down to the display resolution of the monitors being used to view the slideshow. Even though P2E does on the fly resample very well, you will get better images by doing it yourself and it doesn't take IrfanView (free) very long to batch resample using some very good interpolation algorithms. For best results with DVD you would also want to do this and resample down to around 1024 on the longest axis rather than let the program downsample the originals. It will go quicker and the results will be superior. Just a suggestion.... Best regards, Lin

Yes, but the way you must do it is to combine the pte's then create an executable. What she really needs to do is learn how to copy and paste pte's from various shows to create the executable. As with any executable code, multiples can't be combined into one so I doubt that is really what she wants, just the end effect. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dom, She is using some of your templates, the one's where he replaces your samples with his own images. He wants to combine the effects of several different templates in one executable file but doesn't know how to proceed. I think he needs to learn how to copy/paste the pte files...... Lin

Hi Laura, Text has not yet been enabled in the beta so you need to create your text in Photoshop or other graphics editor. The easiest way is to create it as a PNG file (there are a number of tutorials concerning this available for download). You can change the background color in either Project Options, Screen, Background or you can do it for individual slides via Customize Slide, Main, Use Own Background Preference. With each of these you can use any solid color or gradient. You can also create solid jpg files in your choice of image editor and use these via the Objects and Animations on a layer behind your images. You have two ways to fade in pictures. You can use the Fade In Fade Out effect or you can use the Keypoints and set opacity for any image initially to zero then place a keypoint at the time you wish the change to full opacity to occur and set that opacity to 100%, etc. This will fade in the image to either a full or any transparency you wish - very versatile. I would suggest downloading and reading some of the tutorials and playing with the new beta for a while before switching over completely because there are many powerful new capabilities. Igor is slowly introducing all features to facilitate debugging. There will be at least one more beta before the release version is ready. Best regards, Lin

Hi Cheryl, Sorry to be so late responding - I've been out of town on a job since just after my last post. Let's try something else because there seems to be a problem where there shouldn't be. If you open your P2E file then click on file then "Create Backup in Zip". Once the zip file is created, can you post a link to it? I'll download the P2E zip file and create an AVI file for you then post a link to the created AVI and at least this will get you started so you can burn the DVD. We can figure this out, but something isn't quite right because the AVI "should" play very well without the issues you are having. It's "possible" that you may need to download and install the free ACE Mega Codec pack and use one of the Microsoft MPEG codecs eventually, but for now if you zip up the pte file and images (this is all done automatically by following the above) then we can get a good AVI file created with the proper parameters. In general, you want to use the least possible compression on the AVI file. You need some or the file size could be huge but I would guess that you want the least compression possible with the codec being used to get the best quality AVI which will then make the best quality DVD. I have plenty of storage space so I can post a link to the AVI file and you can then download it and burn it to DVD. I have all available codecs and tomorrow I'll find the link to the ACE Mega Codec Pack download so you can download and install some of the better ones. This will greatly help with your creation of quality AVI. Eventually Igor will have the Deluxe version of 5.0 with it's own burn engine and this will all be an academic exercise, but to get your slideshow burned for your client, the quickest way is to probably let me do the AVI for you then we can decide on the best codec for you to use and the precise parameters for the best results. You can call me if you wish at 303-776-8897 in Colorado or email at [email protected]. You can always reach me from my site at: http://www.lin-evans.net Just follow the email link...... Best regards, Lin

Hi Cheryl, Of the codecs you have listed, Cinepak by Radius is the best candidate for a stand-alone AVI file. Follow the previous instructions to get to the point where you selected the little black down arrow in the small blue box then change the selection to the Cinepak by Radius codec. Use the 29.97 frames per second and set the display size to something very standard for now until we get this sorted out. I would choose 800x600 (this won't be the final DVD size) and create the stand-alone AVI file. This will take a good bit of time - the fact that you only took a few seconds tells me that you were looking at the PicturesToExe Codec which just sends the software a template for video and doesn't actually make a stand-alone AVI file itself. Once you have created the AVI file, test it by playing it back. Then if it looks good, use the downloaded software first to burn a DVD. If that works, try Nero. It will take a bit of time which you don't have right now to sort out why Nero isn't working correctly. It "could" be something you are doing, it "could" be the interface between Nero and the PicturesToExe AVI template. Buy to solve your immediate problem, i.e., getting your client a DVD, let's go ahead and make a stand-alone AVI file to work with. Best regards, Lin

Hi Cheryl, Do the following: Open your pte file and click on the "Video" tab then click inside the very top little circle next to where is says "Create Custom AVI Video File". This should put a "dot" inside that circle. Next type in the precise size you want under the "Width" - "Height" tabs and type "29.97" in the space under the FPS (frames per second) tab. Next click on the "Video Codec" tab and then from the "Video Compression" window, click on the little black down arrow in the small blue block in the Compressor window. Please write down everything under the PicturesToExe Video Codec tab and list it for us. A "Codec" is a compress/decompress algorithm which is used to create video or audio compression. Some work very well for DVD's and some are not suitable. Each computer will usually have several of these available depending on software you've downloaded in the past which included these codecs. You "may" need to download and install other "free" codecs but first let's see what you already have available. The PicturesToExe Codec is not a true Video Codec in that it doesn't create a stand-alone AVI file but rather furnishes audio information for Nero or other specific burning engines along with a "template" of transitions and image files which lets them use their own Codec choice to actually burn the DVD. In addition, PicturesToExe can use other codecs to create stand-alone AVI files which can subsequently be burned to DVD disks. In your case, something is not quite right about the use of Nero so what you may want to do first is create a good stand-alone AVI file. One which can be played on any computer regardless of whether PicturesToExe is resident and open. Once you have successfully created a quality stand-alone AVI file, the rest will be quite simple. So report back on which Video codecs your system has by following the instructions above and then we can help you choose a suitable codec to make a stand-alone AVI file to proceed. Best regards, Lin

He placed his order for PicturesToExe on 5 October with credit card but has not yet received his unlock key........... Lin

Hi Cheryl, Sorry you are having this issue. First, can you answer a couple questions? Did you make a stand-alone AVI that works properly? Which codec did you use? Have you burned DVD's in the past which worked correctly with this version of Nero? If you indeed made a 'stand-alone" AVI which works properly, then the issue can be attributed to some problem with Nero or even possibly with the media. Why don't you download one of the free DVD burn software programs and give them a try, at least until the nature of the problem can be discovered. Here is a link to one: http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Video...ee/1133302143/1 Best regards, Lin

We have greatly different experiences. I've personally tested p2e betas on several hundred systems since it first became available. This includes a large number of different video cards, system configurations and so on. I've created large and small RAM models with 32 layers of simultaneous operations and posted them so anyone can download them and test their systems. The "vast majority" (that's a statistical majority) have found that executables made with P2E executables run smoothly unless there is less than 64 megabytes of Video RAM or the RAM loading is excessive, neither of which is usually an issue. Could you please tell me how you determined that "these assertions are very far from the truth"? Are you speaking from your personal experience or have you actually tested this assertion and determined which systems, video cards, versions of Direct X, etc., are having problems? What percentage do you estimate are not working properly with executable files? I'm sincerely interested in knowing what you have found and trying to determine why our experiences are so different. Igor has posted a list of video cards and asked for feedback on how well the samples have worked. Perhaps I've missed the reports of poor operation and if so I apologize, but I'm certainly not seeing a large number of people complaining about the smoothness of operation of executable slide shows. There have been some who have had difficulties, but if there are large numbers I would sincerely like to hear about it so we can get to the bottom of the issues. I'm certain Igor would also be very interested. Best regards, Lin

Hi Patrick, We actually have seven systems to run these on ranging from state-of-art to very poor video. There is some jerky motion on the large images on our system with the very poor video card, but remenber when we downsample to AVI we are, in general, dropping the image quality by a significant amount over the executable. Since the one thing which PicturesToExe has over the competition is image quality, and since the majority who will view these have reasonably good video systems, what is the true advantage of using a reduced resolution AVI? The "advantage" is so that a "few" can enjoy better performance while the "many" loose the additional image quality of the executable. In general, those who are fortunate enough to be able to afford Plasma screens or High Definition TV which can take advantage of certain AVI quality are also fortunate enough to be able to afford upgraded video environments on their computers. So producing a higher resolution AVI file does not really work to the advantage of those less fortunate who have normal PAL or NTSC systems and the majority who have the means to buy large screen Plasma or HDTV also have the means and are more likely to have upgraded computers. In the near future, all computer systems sold will very likely have upgraded video systems to run the Vista Operating System so this will all become a moot point. For now - it does take considerable bandwidth to download the relatively HUGE AVI files over the very compact execuables. The above, of course, is only my opinion and may or may not be correct, but it does explain my position ....... Best regards, Lin

Hi Jean Pierre, First let me congratulate you on an incredible display of images and effects! I really don't imagine why any large proportion of those who downloaded the AVI files really "need" to use AVI because the vast majority of computers will play the executables very, very well. The size of AVI compared to executable is about 10:1 and a loss of resolution too. I suspect that perhaps they were downloaded primarily because folks rarely see an AVI on Beechbrook rather than that they can't see the executables correctly. I've been trying Windows Media Converter lately to convert the AVI to wmv format which can be streamed from the web. In that format the wmv is compressed to about half the AVI size but there is a fairly larger loss of quality. I really think that the executables are fine for the vast majority. Best regards, Lin

Hi Howard, Sure, there are a number of improvements over Photoshop 7 in CS and still more in CS2. Elements has about 75% of the power of Photoshop but whether or not you really need either depends a great deal on what you do with the program. If you are a serious photographer who wants the very best from RAW images, then both Photoshop CS2 and the latest version of Elements give you much more (Adobe Raw Converter) to work with than seven, but if you only use the program as a means of light touch up for levels, curves, creating PNG files, etc., then you will likely not get your money's worth from upgrading. If you can say more about what you do or intend to do with Photoshop it would be easier to comment. Best regards, Lin

============= "...... I wonder how many other 'grown ups' can reach this level?" "......Maybe even the grown up kids will not get top score!" ============= LOL - just commenting in jest on the above .... I agree, a very excellent example to demonstrate alternative ways this older version of this superb tool could be used. Best regards, Lin

LOL - too cool, but a really "smart" kid would likely "miss" a couple "correct" answers. For example, even though the red lighthouse "boat" has "Ship" plainly painted on its side, I strongly suspect any Royal Navy representative would laugh at the designation "Ship" applied to a vessel which could hardly be expected to navigate the deep water seas, but more likely be anchored somwhere to warn true "ships" to avoid a dangerous situation. The "cottage" fails two of the three accepted qualities for membership in the category. It's two stories and not in a rural setting. Perhaps at one time before the addition was built on it may have been closer to a cottage than a house, but most children would definitely think this more of a house than a cottage.. Cottage: 1. A small, single-storied house, especially in the country. 2. A small vacation house. [Middle English cotage, from Anglo-Norman, from Medieval Latin cotāgium, of Germanic origin.] Ship: a. A vessel of considerable size for deep-water navigation. b, A sailing vessel having three or more square-rigged masts. An aircraft or spacecraft. The crew of one of these vessels. One's fortune: When my ship comes in, I'll move to a larger house. But then there is the "cultural" aspects of geographical differentiation. Perhaps locally the building would be widely recognized as a "cottage" and the fact that the red boat has "ship" plainly lettered on the side would qualify it for inclusion in that category. So kids in the U.K. would score better than kids in the U.S. who would call the red vessel a "boat" and the cottage a "house" - LOL. Of course in some parts of the world the red vessel would definitly qualify as a "ship" if the only craft known to navigate waters were hollowed out logs (priogue) such as found in South America's Orinoco Basin while the "cottage" would be known as a "hotel" in some African areas. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jeff, Thanks much for the feedback! I'm not sure why it works for some and not for others. I'm going to do some more searching for answers. There is probably some sensible answer to explain the differences, but I don't know enough about how the Windows streaming works to sort it out yet. I'll get back when I have some suggestions. I have had this same comment from at least one other person but also a number who find the streaming works as it should so there is something not quite right. Could you tell me which browser you are using? I know people can't get it to work with IE 5.57 but it should work with earlier and later versions. Best regads, Lin

Hi again Fred, I updated the post with another link to my "Reflections" slideshow which has some closeups of animals, birds, etc., so you can get some idea of the Windows Media Encoder's capabilities. Actually it works out quite well I think in terms of DVD quality on-line. Go to the original and choose the second link... Best regards, Lin

Hi Tassie, The quality shouldn't be "horrible" but you can't match the quality of the executable file unless the executable is only about 800x600 resolution. DVD shows are typically designed to run on PAL or NTSC television receivers which have low resolution and generally a different aspect ratio than computer monitors. An executable show with PicturesToExe will produce resolution equal to the original images or your display system, whichever is lower. Unless you have a very high resolution screen display (the highest right now available is a bit over 9 megapixels and very expensive) you can expect something in the neighborhood of 1600x1200 on normal high resolution settings. This is much higher than can normally be achieved on a DVD played back on TV so the best solution is to get the quality on the DVD up to the standards of the television receiver you play the slideshow on. In addition, typical DVD quality output is 29.97 frames per second interlaced while executable output can be as high as 60 frames per second progressive. To do this there are two approaches. First is to use one of the supported programs such as Ulead DVD Movie Factory, etc., and output an AVI template using the techniques described elsewhere on this forum and let the program burn the DVD. The other alternative is to use the "Create Custom AVI" and choose a good codec such as Microsoft Mpeg 4 Video Codec. Once the AVI is created then use a program such as Nero or Roxio to burn the DVD. This will all become unnecessary when PicturesToExe Deluxe is released with the internal DVD burn engine, but for now the above is the best way to approach the issue. If you will tell us more about the software you are using to burn the DVD, perhaps we can help you sort out the proper steps to get the best quality possible for your display device. Best regards, Lin

Nope, not likely - that's the type thing you can find in Microsoft's free slideshow programs. Each image is different and requires a different approach to maximize quality. Some are amenable to zoom, some not. The same goes for pans, etc. Setting up a "random" pan or zoom just for the motion has little utility in a serious tool for quality presentation slideshows - that's the type gimmick which programs like Windows Movie Maker, etc., have. I for one would never use such a thing but there is a place for it - just not in a serious tool. Motion and the Ken Burns effects can be used with great aesthetic quality if not overdone. Using them just for the sake of having movement detracts from what the artist wants to present. Best regards, Lin

Yes, they can use p2e as well, but not with native OS and there are lots of older Mac's which don't work well with the newer Windows emulation software so Flash is still a better choice if you must reach an Apple audience as well. Best regards, Lin

Naaa..... Gold is old, Platinum is Happenin' Lin

Hi Fred, You can download the latest version here: http://www.download.com/Windows-Media-Enco...4-10211788.html Best regards, Lin Hi Fred, I haven't, but these tiny planets reveal a lot about the encoder. There is very little difference in this particular slideshow between the original AVI and the Windows.wmv files so I would expect fine performance for people and animals. The quality depends greatly on the amount of compresion used. The original AVI was about 64 meg and the .wmv for this one about 42 meg for only a 2 minute show so I would expect pretty large files. Of course this means you need plenty of storage space on the server if you want high quality output, but since the buffering seems to work quite well I would expect that with that single caveat one could get excellent results, at least at 640x480 file size. The encoder will output a wide variety of quality, etc., so it's really up to the user to decide how much to give up in term of quality for file size. I think with the combination of Flash and wmv files p2e can be quite competitive with Proshow Producer without going to some proprietary format. If Igor could include an internal converter to wmv and flash in some future version there would be no reason why the p2e shows can't be web compatible and better than the competition. Of course all these converters only output about 29.97 fps which is far below the 60 fps of our executable shows, but they still seem pretty good for web purposes. Best regards, Lin Hey, as long as it works - LOL Best regards, Lin