Lin Evans

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 data2@lpbroadband.net. 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

I've been using Flash for some time to share P2E and Proshow Gold shows on the web. Windows has made some major improvements to their Media Encoder and I thought I would pass along what I've learned. The free Windows Media Encoder with take your AVI files produced with P2E and convert them to Windows compatible streaming slideshows. There are some real advantages and some disadvantages over Flash. First the disadvantages. Flash is compatible with both MacIntosh and Windows based computers, where the Windows Media Video (.wmv) format is only compatible with Windows based computers. Flash does a better job with smaller tighter code, but if you have broadband to upload, the Windows Media Encoder will produce a superior file especially at about 640x480. The streaming works very well I think and the Windows Media Player is usually defaulted to play the files though they can be played with other players such as IrfanView as well. Here's two samples. I would appreciate feedback to let me know how well it works. The first show is about 2 minutes long, is about 9 meg in executable format and about 42 meg the way I have encoded it with Windows Media Encoder. It should begin playing after a short buffering period but with normal broadband it should play very quickly. The second is about 63 meg and 4 minutes 50 seconds long. Both should stream without long delays. Click the links below: http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/planets.wmv http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/reflect.wmv Best regards, Lin

Hi Bob, Depending on exactly what you are using for a background, there are a couple ways to proceed. First, if you want a solid or gradient background, there is no need to use Photoshop at all, it can all be easily done in P2E. I'll explain a bit later. If you have a background which you want to use with each slide and you have previosly created this background in Photoshop and saved it as a jpg, bmp, png, etc., then you can do as suggested earlier and add it to each slide by making it the first image on the Objects and Animation screen. Let's start with the first possibility - that is use a background or gradient background. Open Project Options then click on the Screen Tab. Choose either Solid Color or Gradient Filling by clicking in the small circle. If you choose Gradient Filling you will have two colors to chose. The one on your left as you view the screen becomes the background and the one on the right becomes the gradient. So if you have bright blue on the left and black on the right you will get a blue screen which changes to blue/black either from top to bottom or from left to right depending on which you choose in the drop-down menu. This will be the same for each image on screen so all images which are smaller than your screen display size will have this background as a border around the visible areas extending to the edges of your display. Right now, the "tiled" option isn't yet enabled. If you want to use your own, then you go to the Objects and Animations screen, zoom the screen to a small percentage such as 10% so you see lots of grey outside the black area representing your monitor. Right click your mouse in the grey area far away from the balck and ADD the background file. This will default so that the background is on its own layer and in the FRONT. You don't want it in the FRONT but rather in the BACK so Right Click the Mouse on the background file in the Objects List then choose ORDER then SEND TO BACK (alternatively you can just select it and press SHIFT/PG DN. Do this for each slide. Beset regards, Liin

Translation - Rough - my Spanish isn't flawless - LOL - Lin Thanks to all for your answers. I have been trying to understand the manuals that I find, and even in the version Beta 5, already I can see the works and examples carried out. What I do not understand, because do not they explain in any of the manuals I have read, is how "to make" the effects. I have almost all the examples and I have been analyzing them. For example I use Memories on TV, Proshow Producer, and I find a lot of information that helps me. With the program Pictures To exe, I have been able "to transfer" some effects I've been able to do in Proshow Producer, but not with the great quality of the PicturesTo Exe Pictures to exe examples I've seen. It seems p2e is "spectacular" to work with and with better results. Excuse the modelers, but I prefer to write in Spanish, because it is easier to explain my problems in understanding. Greetings and Thanks.

Hola Silva, Morales (Morasoft) has offered to help translate the tutorials into Spanish once we get them written. We are waiting until Igor finishes version 5 to try to put together a collective and comprehensive tutorial. Check back shortly after version 5 is released and hopefully those of us who are creating tutorials and help manuals will have more information. We hope to convince a number of bilingual people to help translate these into numerous languages but it would not be wise to do this until the release version is ready. Best regards, Lin

Most excellent tutorial! It all works for me with the exception of the Dom's Action.SWF which seems to have been corrupted very shortly after the start. It simply stops well before it should so I suspect some issue with the file during the zip or such. Best regards, Lin

The Flash show requires that the Flash 8 player be installed. You probably don't have this enabled so go to the Macromedia site and just download and install the latest version (which I think is Flash 9) and this should work fine. Players such as IrfanView are only enabled up to Flash 5 or so. Also see Ken C.'s sucggestions for downloading flash players on other posts. I don't know why the AVI would play upside down and flipped - that's really strange but quite likely because you don't have the proper codec. This is one of the ongoing difficulties with AVI - there are so many codecs out there and trying to find one which is resident on everyone's system is a problem. On my first tutorials I used Cinepak codec by CTi and on later ones I used DIVX Pro. I suspect the one you are having problems with is the Cinepak codec. That's why I made that one tutorial in both Flash and AVI for maximum compatibility. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, Let's start with the second part of your question. Yes, the data rate and other issues do make a difference, especially when the AVI is played back at higher resolutions and not over the web. The settings that affect image quality are: Frame rate (the number of frames captures per unit of time - usually per second). Whether "progressive" or "interlaced." The interlaced mode is designed to accommodate broadcast television where the image is created by tracing one scan "line" at a time and skipping every other line on the first pass then returning to "fill in" the missing lines on the second pass. For example, in the United States, the NTSC standard calls for 525 lines and 60 cycles (Hz) per second. This means that lines 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, etc., are traced from left to right (as you view screen) then when line 525 has been traced the electron beam quickly sweeps back to the beginning and traces lines 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, etc. The persistence of the phosphor triads when excited by the electron stream from the CRT is long enough that we see minimal flicker so this "interlaced" method works pretty well. But on a high quality LCD or CRT on a computer, the "progressive" mode (lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc.) trace produces a cleaner image with less flicker and is preferred. I'm not sure why you are not seeing some difference in the playback when choosing different parameters, you definitely "should" see differences. Codecs (compress/decompress) algorithms resident on your computer account for different choices on the "Create Custom AVI" menu. There are numerous codecs and whenever you install new software you may be adding to the list. You can also download free codec "packs" such as the "ACE Mega Codecs Pack" where you can install as many as you wish. As far as which are "best" - the answer varies according to your intended use. Some codecs compress more than others so are preferred when trying to minimize file size for the web, etc., Some compress very little and for playing on a computer, compression isn't a big issue. Generally, the Microsoft MPEG 4 video codec is considered one of the "better" for image quality, but the DivX Pro codec is also quite good and has many, many quality "settings". The purpose for having different data rates, bitrates, etc., is to facilitate being able to play the files over a limited bandwidth medium such as the web. If the datarate exceeds the ability of the connection to feed the data to the computer via the web, then the show will stall, start, stop, etc. Those with broadband may be able to play fairly high datarate shows, but dial-up connections will be overwhelmed. For playback directly from a hard disk, CD or DVD on a computer, fast datarates are fine and there is no sacrifice in image or audio quality by choosing even an uncompressed mode. When you post you shows on the web, whether AVI, MPEG I/II or Flash, you must use a fairly low bitrate so as not to overwhelm either the storage capacity or load time or cause the viewer to have to wait for lengthy periods as the show downloads. Because of this, the quality will necessarily be compromised. At best, the DVD quality is significantly under the quality of an executable show because the resolution must be compromised to fit the "standard" being used. Best regards, Lin