Lin Evans

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

Hi Larry, You can't directly make an MPEG II file with PicturesToExe. You can't make an AVI file directly with the pte codec so you need to use the "Create Custom AVI" feature to create an AVI file. You "can" convert an AVI file to MPEG II with various software, but there is no real advantage to doing this at all. An AVI file is highly compressed versus an MPEG II file. When you take a compressed file and then make an uncompressed file from it the result is no better than the original, just much "larger". This is what you would be doing if you created the AVI file then converted it to MPEG II. The result would be a much larger file witht any improvement at all in quality. In short, it would be better to give them a good AVI. The AVI files created using the "Create Custom AVI" feature are as good as the codec (compress de-compress algorithm) used. The best I've seen is the Microsoft MPEG 4 codec. If you don't already have this codec on your computer you can get it from various locations. I would suggest downloading the ACE Mega CodecS Pac here: http://www.free-codecs.com/download/ACE_Mega_CoDecS_Pack.htm Install the Microsoft MPEG 4 video codec then use the Create Custom AVI function of PicturesToEXe to create an AVI file with the MPEG 4 Video codec as the video codec choice. This will allow the createion of a very good AVI file which you can then either use as is (recommended) or use other conversion software to convert to MPEG II. Lin

Hi Paul, The show is very smooth and looks great on my system. As said by others, this (stutter with pans and zooms) is almost certainly a result of your video card. From the Windows desktop click on Start/Run then type in "dxdiag" and press O.K. Next click on the Display tab and this will indicate which video card and how much video memory you have. Best regards, Lin

Hi Nettleton, I can't be certain, but this sounds like a memory issue - perhaps you don't have sufficient memory to run both programs or Home Deluxe 4 is not releasing memory back to the system. Some programs work that way and some can be minimized and work well with other programs running. This could be related to the use of swap files. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, The reason you still see the base is because of the drop shadow on the text. You can "fix" the file by using the opacity brush to blend in the drop shadow or perhaps re-do the file without the drop shadow in PhotoShop or extend the crop a little further down. What's happened is that you cropped a bit too tight which gave a "regular" rather than "irregular" appearance to the bottom of the letters which normally would have taken the shape of their individual characters. Very nice presentation - by the way... Best regards, Lin

Hi Steve, You don't "have" to make a temporary AVI output file, that's just a default and what actually happens is not an AVI file but the "instructions" or "template" for an AVI file which is actually created by the various software referenced. If you click on the "Create Custom AVI Video File" then choose an appropriate video codec such as MPG4, etc., you can create a normal AVI file - you have the best of each world. You can use the template which works with Ulead, Pinnacle or Encore as checked or you can create a custom AVI file with your own choice of audio and video codec. You can use whichever codec you feel works best with the DVD burn software you use. Lin

Tom, Be sure you are downloading from the correct link - here is the link for convenience: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4667 Also be sure that you are clicking on the correct APR beta file - put the new one in a different folder so you are certain that you are installing the correct file rather than reinstalling the beta 3 version. Lin

Hi John, So you do not end up fighting multiple issues remember that whenever you insert a keypoint, the zoom stays with it even if you subsequently move the keypoint. For a test, take a zoom in from 100% to 400%. Set the overall time with only two keypoints. The first defaults to zero so then set the time to 10 seconds for the entire zoom and observe what happens. You have a rather nice linear zoom. Now insert a keypoint at about 1 second then slide the keypoint to 9 seconds and watch again. Strange?? Yes - the actual zoom percentage stays with the insert point at about 1 second so that you end up with an extremely slow zoom to 9 seconds followed by an extremly fast zoom for the last second. In order to keep your zoom linear or to compensate for the perception of non-linear zoom you need to know the degree of total zoom as a percentage then divide this total zoom percentage by the number of increments you intend to use to know what "should" be at any particular part. For example, in the example above you have 400% size increase over 10 seconds. So 400/10 - 40 or 40% increase for each 1 second of time. So at 1 second we would have 140%, at two seconds 180%, three seconds at 220%, etc. So at 9 seconds we would have 360 percent (9x40). This is what you would need presently to calculate how to keep the zoom percentage linear in "reality". Now to compensate for perception. So to figure out your percentages for each point you must make some estimate at to the "perceived" rate of zoom at the start and end then factor in the percent of change necessary to achieve what "appears" to be linear to compensate for the human perceptual difference. I can't give you exact figues because I don't know how the perception of zoom differs from the reality of zoom, but perhaps you could make an estimate based on "perception" then alter the true linear zoom figures for any given point in some compensatory fashion based on perception to arrive at what appears to be linear to you. Best to make the compensation spread over more rather than fewer increments to minimize the perceptual changes at any given point. Best regards, Lin

Excellent! This is much appreciated Igor - very nice and very smooth - congratulaions are in order!! Lin

Hi Jeff, Not too much commentary at all in my opinion. I think the historical overview was not only necessary, but added a great deal to the presentation from both an aesthetic and educational perspective. This was a lovely presentation - It would also have been nice to have a couple shots entering or leaving port on the two islands and perhaps a frame or so of the coastline from the sea side. Over all this was a very nice trip back through time as well as in the present. Best regards, Lin

Hi Cindy, Beautiful photography and excellent presentation - congratulations on a very fine slideshow depicting how the world "should" get along! My only suggestion would be to taper off the end of the last song with Audacity or other software and apply a long fade out for the last/first image which ended rather abruptly. Again congratulations - keep up the fine work!! Best regards, Lin

Hi David, Unfortunately, none of the presentation slideshow programs available can create slidelshows which can be run over the web with any true quality without using some other program which is designed for web use. The problem is that neither executable code, nor AVI code nor MPEG II code can be used directly on the web without some issues. Either there is an unavoidable delay, the quality is greatly compromised or other issues such as downloading specialized players, etc. The problem is that a slidelshow containing high quality images has some reasonable size which prevents users from being able to see it unless they are lucky enough to have T3 capabilities such as with some government and military systems. Common broadband communications simply can't provide fast enough download capabilities for this to happen on any reasonable and continuous basis. To get around this difficulty we either must download the file as Barry suggests and play it on a PC or we must convert it to some format which can be used. Each method has its own issues and associated problems. HTML can be read by anyone with a PC or with a MacIntosh, but you are up against the issue of file size so must necessarily have a relatively tiny image of medium low quality to make this means work. Flash allows 640x480 or so size or reasonably good quality and can be played on both PC and MacIntosh computers which have a Flash Player. Other methods such as Active X can only be seen on PC and not on MacIntosh computers. Unfortunately at this stage of technology there is no viable other method(s) which will allow what you wish to happen. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, The easiest way to get a decent usable slideshow on you web is to use Flash. There are a number of different Flash generating programs available. Flash FLV is the method I use because it allows spooling the program and you can set various levels of quality and size with it. If money is not a huge object you may want to consider Flash 8 (there are several iterations of Flash) and FLV rather than SWF Flash (SWF has an absolute limitation of 16,000 frames which means about 9 minutes of slideshow). The "best" I've found is On2 Technologies Flix Pro. It's not cheap ($250) but it's good. Next, if money is a large consern you might use the Free Riva Encoder and the $30 Riva Producer Lite (a very nice combination). In either case you must make an AVI file first. At present this (AVI File) is not possible with the Beta version of 5.0 but is possible with the release version 4.xx. Search the Video for previous links about creating web shows..... Lin PS, there is also the possibility of using HTML but the size of the image will be much smaller than the AVI. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, No need to apologize, no offense taken in any way. We all need to share as much information as possible to insure that everyone gets the most from all these great new features. With great power sometimes comes complexity so it's not always simple and easy to grasp, but the more we work with the program the easier it will become. Best regards, Lin

Hi Derek, I'm only guessing, but probably if they (pte files) don't work it's because the associated files (png, jpg, etc.) which make up the show are not included for whatever reason. There is a feature with version 5 which allows the creation of a zip file containing everything necessary to load and run a show from PicturesToExe as well as create an executable file. I'll provide a link below to one I did. Download the zip file then create a folder to unzip it into. Unzip the file then start Beta 3 and open the pte file and go to Preview and try it. It "should" work just fine "IF" the zip file was created with the built-in provisions for creating a zip backup. You will need to wait until the next beta is released (not too long now - maybe a couple weeks at the outside) then there will be a provision for creating an AVI file which you can use to burn a DVD. Right not the "video" provision is not incorporated in Beta 3, only the ability to make an executable file. Igor is adding new features with each beta to facilitate debugging so by the time beta 5 arrives (we are now at Beta 3) most of the features found in the present 4.xx release version will be incorporated. But for now you can't create a DVD with Beta 3 created slideshows. Here's the link: http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/cimarron.zip Download the above, create a folder and unzip it in that folder. Then load the pte and you "should" be able to run the show from PicturesToExe Beta 3 as well as create an executable file. All the necessary components are included in the zip file. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, There's a large difference between "mastering" the program and doing the simple things like setting a zoom and pulling the start and ending keypoints into the overlap regions to affect simultaneous display of the zoom out and zoom in. Setting a zoom "should" be very easy for anyone once they understand that any image can be displayed at its default or at larger or smaller sizes by simply clicking on the start keypoint and dragging the rectangle surrounding the image to affect the size desired at the start point. If you want to zoom in on an image you need to start with either the default size or smaller. If you want to zoom out you need to start with the image zoomed in. So these issues truly are easy. As for the simultaneous transition display - my intent was to explain to the OP that it's not something difficult to achieve - it just takes dragging the ending keypoint into the transition zone and the start keypoint for the ensuing slide into the transition zone - the transition zone being that part of the timeline before or after zero. I don't intend to make light of the need to study the tutorials and that's all part of the learning curve with any new program. We fully intend to have comprehensive tutorials for this program, but there is little advantage in re-inventing the wheel over and again so best to wait until version 5.0 is released to do the updates. We're all learning as we go. I think sometimes the problem is that we become impatient to "do a real slideshow" rather than simply playing with the tools as they are introduced so that we can learn in bite (byte) sized pieces rather than getting confused with too much on our plates. Some are visual learners, some learn by reading and that's why Jeff and I will have both approaches for the tutorials. One will be referential in nature and the other a practicum. Between the two we hope to cover all relevant features. Perhaps I should not use term such as "easy" to describe these things, but as new people approach the forum, we find those who are willing to actually do some research on their own and use the forum tools to find some of the many excellent examples and answers while others simply begin with "I don't see any way to....." and "how can I......" or "why doesn't this program do...... strange....." This tells me that the person asking these questions has neither bothered to look for the answers by reading past posts or even watched any of the numerous slideshow examples members have provided which demonstrate conclusively that PTE can do the very things they ask about (such as zoom in on the eyes, display both slides during transitions, etc.). Let's just say that the things are "easily" done rather than "easy". Anything is "easy" if you know how and terribly difficult if you haven't a clue how to use the tools. I have great faith that the tutorials will make learning this program very "easy" for those who speak English. Hopefully we can find some who speak both English and other languages to translate the tutorials so that all our users, regardless of their native languages can easily learn to use these great new features. Best regards, Lin

LOL - that's happend to me as well. Over a period of around five years I developed a very nice inventory control package designed for the Art Gallery industry which I made the mistake of "customizing" for a few clients. The requests for changes kept coming for years and I finally had to refuse to make further changes because there is no end to individual preferences and for "it would be nice if's"...... The program had around 260,000 lines of code and each change required a complete re-test and search for all places which were affected. End users generally have no concept of what's involved and how many 80 hour weeks can be involved in debugging for what appears to them to be simple changes. Best regards, Lin

1. Only a beta 3 of PicturesToExe is presently available so until the release of version 5.0 is out all features such as using video clips are not yet implemented but are introduced gradually in following betas. 2. You set a slow zoom (set the time for the slide to a longer period) and center on the eye --- very easy... 3. You use a white jpg frame between slides and set a longer time period on the fade transition,,,,,, 4. Put the ending keypoint for the first of the two slides into the transition period. Slide it far enough so the image disappears off the screen in the Objects and Animations screen, then pull the zero beginning point on the second image back before the zero point and set the transition time for each to about six seconds and for fade. This will give you both images together simultaneously with one fading out while the other fades in. Very easy.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Gilio, It really not a strange number - the latest series of cards and chipsets from ATI are outlined in Ken's link. The 1100 series is built into laptops which have the Mobile AMD Sempron™, Mobile AMD Athlon™ 64, AMD Turion™ 64, AMD Turion™ 64 X2 processors. You don't have a choice of using a different card unless you buy a different computer, but these are high performance cards designed for the Vista operating system so should be fine. Lin