Lin Evans

Hi Bill, Currently not all transitions are available in Beta 4 and music sync is not quite finished so don't kill the original but rather save it and open the pte file in Beta 4 and try the preview to see how much of the original in terms of transitions, etc., are preserved. Once a file has been altered in Beta 4 if will no longer open in the 4.xx version, but you should be able to do this soon when beta 5 is released. Lin

Can't you just make a transparent GIF file and use that? The "border" area is defined as you look at it, but doesn't display on your slideshow. Make it small enough to not need resizing. If you use PhotoShop just put in File/New (set the size in pixels and set the background to transparent). Just save the crosshatch as a file named "transparent.gif" and use it for your hot spot... Lin

Hi John, Like most of my "tinkering" it's a work in process - the title says it all - LOL I'm working on some viable way to "flip" the cube to show the other side - It has to be an illusion so will take some thought. There really is no connection from the lobby to the cube except in the mind of the observer. Perhaps the cube dwellers are trapped in another type of "jungle" where the vegetation is similar, but the glass walls surrounding them reflect more about the designers of the "corporate jungle" (this is the old "Compaq" lobby in Houston, Texas) than the reality of their world - who knows?? Lin Hi Ken - yes the beta 4 has lots of potential - can't wait to play with the finished product... Best regards, Lin

Just Messing Around.... http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/messingaround.zip Lin

Hi Steve, Yes, like Ken says, it's primarily a security issue. Numerous ISP's have software which balks on executables so the zip gives an additional level of protection which prevents both storage and download issues with various software. Some ISP's don't want executable stored in their native fashion because of the danger of even accidental actuation of a potentially dangerous file on their server. With zip it must be off-loaded and unzipped before the .exe can be run. Also in the event that you decide to email a slideshow, zip is acceptable by most email servers which bounce executables. Best regards, Lin

Nope - you can apply the same actions to a picture (that's really all a "button" is) as to a button object. Make the button in PhotoShop and import it as a "picture" in P2E then assign actions like you would for any other button. Lin

theDom must be having fun somewhere - LOL Lin

LOL - that could be done - at least the windmill part - but probably not without some good images of fire and ashes smoking. The animals running out ot the barn - that would require Igor to drop in video capabilities which could happen - stranger things have. Actually I did add some blowing snow and will probably quit and go on to something else to try and create like rain..... LOL Lin

More dimensionality added both in snow effect and in sound effects.... LOL http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/storm.zip Lin

That function has not yet been enabled. You can have background music for the entire show, but not yet for individual slides. Lin

Hi Bill, This explains part of the problem. Try this: first install the Beta 4 (download it from the link below) then open your pte file with it and click on "Project Options" then on "Screen" then choose "4:3 PC/DVD" and then click O.K. Next click on "Objects and Animations" and go to each image and you will see what can be displayed on that aspect ratio. You can adjust the image so you either fill the screen and see the entire image with some black border, or you can crop out parts of the ends, etc. Link: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4327 After quickly going through each image (use the forward and back arrows on the extreme top right of your screen under the "minimixe" and exit "X" to navigate between images) and adjusting them for the desired appearance on screen (the black border represents the TV screen) then click on the "X" to go back to the main screen (like you were exiting the program) and click on the "Video" tab. Choose "DVD Video Disk" and "For Ulead Movie Factory" - use "Progressive" if you have any "Page Turning" effects on transitions, etc., and then choose AVI and do everything else including choosing the pte video codec just as you did with Version 4.44. I would suggest saving this under a slightly different file name for the pte file than with the original so you can use both the Beta 4 and version 4.44 to create shows from the same slide set. This "should" fix the problem of cutting off the top and bottom as well as giving you smoother actions on the DVD. Don't be afraid to try some of the new features in the Beta - and read the tutoials written by several members (check the forum). The DVD's should turn out fine this way with you able to adjust each image by using the "green rectangle" surrounding the picture to adjust the size and screen fit as you wish. This way you can have the best of both the release version and the new beta. Try a tiny slideshow with one or two slides to get used to some of the new features. You can make some very sophisticated slide shows with the beta 4 version. Best regards, Lin PS In case you get into trouble - if you want you can click on "File" the use the "Create zip backup" to zip up the pte and images and post the zip file and we can help you sort it out.

I'm confused Gilbert, Do you have a .zip file containing all these slideshows, or are you referring to a "folder" as a file? There is no practical limit as to how many files you can have in a folder. As far as saving all the files in a single zip file, that doesn't make too much sense. Probably it would be better to zip up shows according to some criteria in groups rather than including all in a single zip file. Of course if what you are really referring to as a "file" is a "folder" then it really doesn't matter. You "could" make multiple folders to contain slideshows from different subject areas if you liked, but there is no penalty for having large numbers of files in a single folder other than the inconvenience of locating them. Lin

Hi Bill, The aspect ratio (height versus width of screen) is different for television and pc monitors. First you need to determine the height/width ratio for the television screen you are using for the display, then when you create the slideshow with pte 5 beta 4 you need to click on the "Project Options" tab then on "Screen" then set the aspect ratio to correspond to this. This will let you see visually that portion which will fit on your television. Since you didn't say which version of p2e you were using, I assumed Beta 4. 1024x768 is typical for many computer monitors but not the same as most tv screens so set the aspect ratio to correspond to the television for DVD production. Go to "start" then "run" then type in "dxdiag" and press O.K. - report the type video card you have and the amount of memory and tell us the average file size of your 1024x768 images and perhaps we can figure out what's going on with the smoothness of the display. Best regards, Lin

Unfortunately we do - and lots of it. Lightning in Colorado ranks only second to Florida for human deaths. On nearly any mountain peak in the afternoons climbers must be off before the early afternoon because of lightning danger. We have 54 peaks 14,000 feet and over with sudden snow storms throughout much of the year. It can be sunny and beautiful then fifteen minutes later blizzards with white-outs, hail the size of half-dollars, heavy lightning and all be gone in an hour. Snow and lightning are very common together in the high country. Best regards, Lin Hi Ken, Additional lightning - PNG Best regards, Lin

Just playing around, but the thunder, lightning and clouds found their way into it too - if you get a chance take another look - LOL (download the original link again).. Lin Hi Ken, Yep, we kids just have to play - LOL Best regards, Lin

The issue of image size to use for various purposes (zoom in, zoom out, display, etc.) has a number of variables which we need to be aware of, but which may be solved by the release. Let's set some foundation information so we are all on the same page: Obviously we need to create our shows with the final disposition in mind. That is, if the show is to be displayed on DVD via NTSC or PAL it has different requirements than if it is to be displayed on a high resolution computer monitor. Fortunately I have systems allowing me to display resolutions from 640x480 to 2048x1536 on a single monitor so it's reasonably easy to test these differences. Also we need to be aware of whether we will be doing extreme zooms and how this will affect the images depending on the display used by the viewer. Right now pte is using bilinear interpolation to auto-fit display screens having differential display resolutions. This creates artifacts when using low resolution monitors with high resolution native images, especially when viewing edges of straight lines such as doorframes, edges of vehicles, etc. Reference this answer by Igor to a question raised by Andrew concerning this issue: ----------------------------------- Andrew, You're right about this problem. Unfortunately Bilinear resizing gives such artefacts when image reducing in several times. Bicubic gives much better results, but Bicubic works in 10-20 times slower and can't be used at all here. I see another good solution for this problem. And I hope we'll realize it in the next betas (already in v5.00). ------------------------------- By this, I assume that some other interpolation method or anti-aliasing technique may be on the horizon for the release, so this may all be premature, but let's continue. When we start with a high resolution oiginal image then use bilinear to make it fit a lower resolution screen such as 1024x768 we end up with a "rope-like" twisted appearance and other aliasing, especially on man-made articles. With trees, grass, etc., there is not so much apparent, but do this with houses, bridges, automobiles, trailers, or anything having straight lines at other than 180, 90 or 45 degree angles and we have issues. So we have the problem of how to zoom in very tight then zoom out to 100% display size when we have a computer monitor or television screen which is set up for a display size considerably different from our original capture resolution or from an exact mathmatical extract such as 50% of the original size. Presently, the best way to do this is either to sacrifice quality of image by using lower resolution originals which have been resized from the capture or scan resolution via sophisticated interpolation techniques such as used in PhotoShop (you zoom in tighter than 200% and you loose significant display quality) or you match the original to scree display resolution by doing the interpolation with PhotoShop, etc., to make the slides the same as the intended display resolution. Right now, there is no other good way to accomplish this. There "are" work-arounds we can consider right now such as using a high resolution original for the tight zoom then fading to a lower resolution copy for the final display or vice versa. This requires some "fiddling" around with fade techniques to approximate the appearance of a single image being used, but is possible. Perhaps we should defer this discussion until version 5 is released because this may all become a moot point and we can simply choose the highest resolution supported by our viewer audience with no concern for these details...... Best regards, Lin

Yes, the frames allow you to manipulate the objects visually - soon when version 5 is released (out of beta) several of us will have tutorials which can help walk you through all the possibilities. There are some fine points which need to be understood such as "Parent/Child" object relationships which were most likely responsible for the problems you were having. Best regards, Lin

Hi Bill, It may be easier to show you than to tell you so if you can, zip up the pte and photos and post a link to the zip file. If you can't do that - here's the situation. There are several ways you can enter objects. First, to do what you want to do you need one of these as the "main" object (on the slide list) and the other directly entered as an independent object on a separate layer. The should appear something like this: Object 1 Object 2 NOT like this: Object 1 ------- Object 2 The easiest way to get these on separate layers is to use about 10% on the view (not auto or 100%) then add the second object by right clicking in the grey area far away from the green bounding rectangle which defines the size and orientation of the first object. You have a feature available by right clicking the mouse with the cursor on an object. Then from the popup you can change the relative positions (layers) by bringing to front, send to back, move forward or move back. This is how you make one object pass either in front of or behind another. If you can zip up the files (go to File then use zip feature) I can set them up for you to see..... Lin

LOL - try it once again and watch all the way through.... That is download the new version - same link: Best regards, Lin

Hi Kevin, If you could post a zip file with a link we could check the results against PhotoShop and see if others have the same result. This would reveal whether the problem was somehow related to the BMP conversion. Normally jpg's are quite sufficient. Go to "File" then "Create Backup in Zip" and the program will create the .pte file and zip up the image(s) as well. Post a link to this and several of us can check it out for you and perhaps find a solution. If you have no place to post the zip, let us know how large and perhaps one of us with our own web site can post it for you. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, Yes, video being a more accurate approximation of real-life would always be preferred but not always "convenient" to film or use. I intentionally chose the image with the blue sky to facilitate the ease of actually seeing the transitions rather than from the perception of a real event although we do get these quick snow storms even in the midst of sunshine here in Colorado. To better resemble reality there would be clouds coming in from the northwest (right rear area) over the peaks and that's rather easy to simulate also, but their presence would make it more difficult to appreciate the transitions from light snow to heavy snowfall so for the demonstration I chose the clear blue sky. The effect you see when projecting the images from the CTML.EXE file as you assume has nothing to do with downloading it. I think I can explain what is happening though not having seen it myself I must guess. The show was optimized for CRT display at 1024x768 resolution. On an LCD either monitor or projector there are several issues which affect the appearance. First of all, the images are a mixed group with many being lower resolution, not over 1024x768. Because the show was originally done for 1024x768 resolution CRT screens, only a few are high resolution originals while most are reduced in size but not in sharpness which accounts for the "hardness" you mentioned. The per pixel level sharpness is largely a result of the X3 sensor in the camera used for most of these images. It produces a sharpness level not possible with conventional digital or film cameras. So even though the images are of lower resolution they maintain the sharpness which you are not used to seeing on your projected images. To do a show properly for large screen projection I would normally use full resolution images, many of which are suitable for 50 -60 inch prints. The print process diminishes sharpness so that by the time these images are printed at poster sizes, they still maintain excellent quality. For slideshow projection, I would normally back off by applying a slight gaussian blur or use the "blur" utility in the p2e beta to take a bit of the "edge" off the crispness. On the other hand for 1024x768 CRT display they are excellent just as they are. This points out the realization that not "one size fits all" when doing slideshows with our excellent tools! This was made quite clear this past weekend when I did some photography for friends then made slideshows using DVD as well as executable file for them. The originals were primarily done at 10 megapixel resolution and the first go at a DVD revealed serious aliasing on straight edges and a rope-like appearance on doorways, etc. Since these issues were not a function of the original very excellent photos, I downsampled to 1024x768 and did the DVD show once again with interlaced mode and the results were excellent. Next I did a slideshow at 1024x768 and played it on both 800x600 and 1024x768 monitors with perfectly straight door frames and no rope-like edges or excessive "shimmer" on zooms. Next I played the same show at 2048x1536 screen display resolution and while the images were "O.K.", the overall crispness and such were gone with less than optimal display. Finally I used the original 10 megapixel images and did the show again. The display on 1024x768 showed harsh aliasing with lots of "flicker" on detailed zooms and lots of rope-like edges. The same display at 2048x1536 resolution was nearly perfect with zero rope-like edges and extremely crisp detail with no perceptible flicker on any zooms. The moral to the story is that we need to make our slideshows for our intended audience and for the display resolution we intend them to be shown on. If the final output is high resolution the choose an original size suitable for this venue. If the final output is lower resolution or DVD, then likewise. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, Just a work in progress to develop the technique - but interesting.... Lin Hi Jeff, Yes, it is more time consuming - but fortunately we can use either the old or new approach so just more to consider depending on the end product and audience. Best regards, Lin

Hi Joe, LOL - not at your dilemma, but at the suggestion that ProShow Gold might not "need" a help forum. Indeed it does have a forum - a couple to be exact - one on Yahoo groups and one dedicated to PhotoDex enthusiasts(link below). http://itsmygallery.com/ProShow/ As someone who has used each (PicturesToExe and ProShow) since their pre-release beta versions many years now, I can guarantee you that ProShow has its share of difficulties. The problem you experience is solved in the beta version of PicturesToExe and will be a non-issue in the release version 5.0. How to use text and such are always interesting issues but the abilities to use transparent background PNG files have greatly affected the way we "think" about these things. The important issue to me, in so far as the differences are concerned, is that PicturesToExe allows full resolution images and ProShow Gold and ProShow Producer do not. Rather than allow full resolution images they optimize for DVD quality (low resolution) then interpolate upward from not more than 800x600 pixels to effect executable slideshows with greater screen display resolutions. This takes a serious toll on image quality which is in part why so many professional photographers prefer PicturesToExe. With the release of version 5 PicturesToExe will far surpass anything of substance that can be done with ProShow Gold and in several ways surpass the very expensive ProShow Producer product. Which is better for you is something you will need to determine for yourself. I know which I prefer :-) Best regards, Lin

Just testing a new possible effect - 60 seconds - small executable - let me know what you think.... http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/storm.zip Lin

Hi Larry, It depends on the MPG compression algorithm being used and the AVI algorithm being used. MPG II is quite large in all my tests compared to the AVI file you will get from PicturesToExe using the MPEG 4 codec. Try it for yourself and decide which you prefer. As an example, if I take ProShow Gold (which outputs an MPEG II file) and create an MPEG II file for a slideshow and take the same images and create an AVI to make a Flash show, the AVI file is less than a quarter of the MPEG file. So the MPEG II algorithm used by ProShow Gold has apparently much less compression than the AVI file used by the MPEG 4 video codec to create the AVI files from PicturesToExe. What I'm saying is that once compression has ocurred, you can't improve on the image quality by creating from the AVI file an MPEG II counterpart. But that MPEG II counterpart in my experience is considerably larger than the AVI file created using the Microsoft MPEG 4 Codec in the set you downloaded. The individual compression methods, whether they are lossy or not, etc., among other factors such as compressibility of the images determine how large the file will be. PicturesToExe can output AVI files but does not have a facility for MPEG II creation directly. You could try it both ways and use whichever you prefer. Best regards, Lin