Lin Evans

Hi Jane, The advertising states that the 1100 series is good to go for Windows Vista so I think you can safely assume that it would be a decent graphics card to run PicturesToExe including the new version 5 and shows with reasonably heavy RAM requirements. Vista will tax any but the better graphics cards. The 1100 series is a chip set designed for this so quite probably a very safe bet for you. Best regards, Lin

Hi Derek, pte files created with the 5.0 Beta versions must be run with the beta version of PicturesToExe 5.0. The "Promo" program has the pan, zoom, rotate features so to see how it was done using the pte file you need to download the PicturesToExe beta 3.0 from the PicturesToExe link on the forum or from the link on the first page at wnsoft.com which will link you to the download on the forum. Install the beta in a different folder and it will create a second PicturesToExe icon so you can run either version. Once the Version 5 release is out, you won't need to do this because it have both the old graphical engine as well as the new graphical engine allowing Pan, Zoom, Rotate, etc. Lin

Hi Jeff, I think Igor realizes that many of the suggestions are not intended for immediate concern but rather for consideration as the software develops. We all know that software is always a work in process so the suggestions may or may not eventually be implemented. As a former software developer myself, I fully appreciate the issues and pressures associated with development and deadlines for releases, but wringing out new software is always an iterative process of discovery and tweaks. One of the questions which keeps popping up is the issue of linearity of zoom and Igor has already told us that there will be non-linear features in either the next beta or at least by the finished product. The discovery that insertion of keypoints then subsequent movement of these keypoints may adversely affect zoom linearity is something which we all need to be aware of and is also something which could possibly account for a number of these prior questions and some potential confusion. Whether or not it's a good idea to have a "choice" switch for synchronization of keypoint and zoom is something Igor and Alecksy will need to consider and act on or not, but the awareness of the issue is better handled earlier rather than later in the development thought process. I agree that it's better to not overwhelm the development team with suggestions for change - but I believe its prudent to bring up issues which bear on performance and which can cause confusion if not understood. Best regards, Lin

Hi David, We wouldn't want it to be an "only' updated situation because this would destroy some of the great flexibility offered, but it would be convenient to have a software choice so it would be easier to keep linear zoom if that's what we wanted for the individual slide. The fact that we can choose to have differential zoom on the X and Y axis lets us create interesting effects such a flipping the coin or compressing the curtains when we draw them on a stage for an opening effect. There are other things which we can do by having differential zooms which don't necessarily correspond to keypoint positions on the time lines, but a choice could be nice when we do want to maintain the linearity of a zoom while having a keypoint inserted for some other possible purpose. Just the act of inserting a keypoint sets a zoom relationship along with it so even if we intend no particular action and accidentally have a keypoint set somewhere between the zero and timeline end, we will affect the linearity unless that keypoint is placed precisely at the time we end up selecting. Any movement or change in the time for that keypoint will necessarily require us to calculate the precise zoom (assuming there is a zoom change from the start to end point) for that slide unless we exercise great care by sliding the little arrow back and forth while observing the time before inserting the keypoint. Having an optional switch to synchronize the keypoint and zoom which "should" be there at that point to insure linearity of the zoom could be a good thing I think. Best regards, Lin

For Steve I believe I know why you see non-linear zooming. I've just tested Beta 3 and the zoom is absolutely linear, BUT keypoints which are set then moved either by sliding them or by changing the values of time for a previously set keypoint do not change zoom values. They keep their original values (zoom values associated with the actual position of the mouse cursor on the timeline whien clicked to add keypoint) when they are either moved by clicking on the "flag" and sliding the keypoint to a different time or by placing a keypoint then typing in a particular time so that the keypoint is moved. When this happens, unless perchance the perfect time desired was selected, the movement between keypoints ceases to be linear when viewed from the perspective of the entire timeline. It's linear between keypoints, but not linear from start to finish. Perhaps Igor might consider a switch which would allow the option of keypoints which are moved to be associated with the zoom which "should" be at a particular point were there no keypoints between the beginning and end of the timeline. Best regards, Lin

Hi Steve, I haven't tested beta 3, but the earlier betas tested correct in linear zooms, by Al and in my own tests. I wouldn't totally rule out any issues but Igor has also said that it's true linear zoom. Of course non of us except the developers really know precisely what is going on in the program but we can be sure that with the inclusion of non-linear zoom in the release version that we should be able to get whatever effect we really want. Of course with keypoints we can actually alter the visual effect as we see fit even now. I sometimes change the zoom percent nearing the end of a zoom out so that in the final few seconds the objects appear to slow. With non-linear zoom incorporated this should be easier to accomplish. Best regards, Lin

Steve, The zoom is absolutely linear. What you are experiencing is normal in that the smaller an object gets the more it "appears" to move away faster and the larger it gets the more it "appears" to be moving slowly. This is a well known psychological issue. Non linear zoom will be enabled on the release product which will allow compensation to offset this perception - right now all we have is indeed true linear zoom. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jim, Great show! Wonderful collection of great images and very educational. Just a couple corrections. The animal with the "mongoose" comment looks like a baby capybara - definitely not a mongoose. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Se...ti_Mongoose.jpg The pronunciation of Gila Monster is "heela monster" - Spanish the G takes an "H" sound. Beautiful slideshow and great narration! Best regards, Lin

There is no problem with executable files playing without hesitation unless the video card is lacking in RAM and only then if there is high RAM loading. You can create low resolution for DVD or HDTV or you can create high resolution for those who have the resources to use it. The same problems exist whether you create AVI or executable files. If you load so much that the hardware rendering can't handle it then the AVI won't be any better than the executable. The program does hardware rendering and the competition is now scrambling to do likewise. There is no question that executable format produces higher resolution and there is no way without a statistical survey that you can surmise that "most" users of PTE with have lower resolution monitors. PTE is used by numerous professional photographers and by people who create slideshows for slideshow competitions. There is a reason they prefer the executable format to AVI or DVD - hence the name of the program "PicturesToExe" rather than PicturesToDVD or PicturesToMovies, etc., it's the basis of the difference between this program and the rest. The bottom line is again that you have "choice". You can use it as you see fit. For many of us the executable format is much preferred to any video format and that's why we love PicturesToExe. Best regards, Lin

Hi John, No changes in the file John. I would guess that for whatever reason your Midi feature is disabled. Try going to the Contro Panel, then to Sounds and Audio Devices (Audio) and check the Midi - my guess is that if you recently turned on the function you may not have "applied' the change, so it didn't "stick".. Best regards, Lin

Hi Keith, When you create a high resolution executable show it will remain available to display its resolution advantage whenever the display can match the show's potential. Conversely, when you create a low resolution show - whether executable or AVI, MPEG II or DVD format, it can never exceed the display resolution it was created with. There is certainly a place for either which is probably why many slideshow software developers standardized on DVD output resolutions. The difference with PicturesToExe over the masses of other software is that it uses hardware rendering which means it renders at the resolution of the input file rather than using a pre-determined maximum such as 800x600 (which is the norm) so that when these programs are used to create an executable file they must interpolate up from the software rendering resolution to match the desired executable output resolution. This invariably causes a degeneration in image quality. Also, there is a loss in variously color fidelity, contrast and different color space. Television can't display the same dynamic range or color range of the CRT monitor. Of course when one creates a slideshow, they should be aware of their audience and the type of equipment which will be used to display the show. The nice thing about the executable file, as mentioned earlier is that it if flexible and can display on a wide variety of output resolutions. Some of us use monitors which can display nine megapixel resolution - slideshows done with PicturesToExe from high resolution originals and displayed on a nine megapixel resolution monitor are very, very impressive. So with PicturesToExe you have a choice. You can render at low resolution for DVD or HDTV or render at high resolution for high resolution output devices. That's the beauty of the flexibility, choice. But in order to take full advantage of the high resolution output with multi-layer effects, etc., the system requires a decent video card. This was the purpose of creating the tests - to allow the user to determine where their individual systems fall in the spectrum of available hardware. Best regards, Lin

Hi Keith, 1280x720 is a low resolution image - less than two megapixels. Executable files can create resolutions equal to the input resolution of the file. For example, I have images which are sixteen megapixels which I can display with a PicturesToExe slideshow at their full resolution complete with smooth animations, etc. The term HDTV (High Definition TV) is somewhat misleading in that it's only high resolution for a television. For a photographer, thats decidedly low resolution. Best regards, Lin

Hi, Welcome to the forum! I'm afraid there is no way to convert or import Powerpoint presentations. Best regards, Lin

Hi Cindy, You can right click on any single slide in the slide list which will bring up a window with "Copy Slide" as an option. Left click on on this option then move to where you want the slide inserted and right click again and select paste. This should copy the slide and it's associated transition and timing. To copy them all set up in classical view and select all with right click and choose "Select All" then "Add all Pictures to Slide List" should put them all into the sllide list again (duplicate) in the same order but I'm not certain if they will pick up the custom timings and transitions you may have set. I haven't tried doing that. But if you have chosen them in some different order in the slide list than you have them on the left side of your screen they probably will appear the way they do on the left rather than in your custom order. Lin

In the immortal words of Strother Martin (Captain, Road Prison 36) in Cool Hand Luke - "what we've got here is failure to communicate..........." LOL Best regards, Lin

Thanks Bruce, I haven't upgraded in quite a while and it's great to hear that Picasa is now supporting NEF RAW files. I use such a variety of digital cameras including Nikon, Canon, Sigma, Panasonic, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Kodak, etc., which all have RAW files that I had given up on finding a program which supported all these formats. Even Adobe DNG has trouble keeping up - but I should and will upgrade Picasa to get the latest features. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ron, There are several ways - some expensive like Portfolio and some free like Picasa http://www.answers.com/topic/picasa Personally I use Picasa which takes quite a while to initially catalog images, especially if you have hundreds o thousands like I do, but it does offer some very nice features where you can insert keywords which allow you to group your images which makes retrieval very painless. Of course if you have huge collections, it takes time to do the initial organization, but once you have that done keeping up is quite easy and it does work with not only your internal hard disk but also with peripheral drives. It doesn't support RAW files - at least the version I currently have doesn't, an thats a bit of a problem but I always have jpg's as well which I leave with their original names which makes it fairly easy to recover by simply doing a Search on the file name should I need the original RAW file. I don't save PhotoShop in-process files or PSD, only the final product in jpg, tiff or png format myself. I suspect any software you use will have the initial problem of getting everything sorted out. It's not an easy task unless keep up. I use Ultrium II tape backup for archival and also magneto-optical for critical files. I also have a number of USB 2 hard disks so that usually I have great redundancy on backups. Off-site storage would be wise but my only off site storage is on my web-site. Probably not smart.... Best regards, Lin

Sure, when I created the original puzzle I used 30 pieces each created in PhotoShop and with precise positioning assured via the fact that they were all "cut" out from a single layer jpg file. By leaving each piece in it's original position I maintained that position by creating a separate layer for each with the PNG files each having full original pixel dimensions. The pixel spacing not used to display the actual individual puzzle piece was just transparency but acted as a "place holder". Imagine the top right puzzle piece on a file which was large enough for all 30 pieces but which had transparency everywhere except where the actual top right piece lay in its original position. Now imagine the same for each piece. A full sized file with only a 1/30th of it containing an actual visible puzzle piece and the rest of the pixels consisting of transparency. The "beauty" of this model is that each puzzle piece occupies its original position assured by the fact that proper placement is guaranteed as long as each layer has the same original dimensions. This made it extremely easy to assemble the puzzle by simply using zero pan, zero zoom and zero rotate for the final assembly on each piece of the 30 separate layers. So do whatever in terms of animation - zoom, rotate, transparency, pan, etc., but at the end of the timeline just set all the PZR, etc., back to zero and everything aligns perfectly. The problem? Huge overall RAM requirement because the transparent portions of a file are only visually transparent, they still have significant memory requirements so the final product was the sum of 30 pieces each having a significant file size plus the two additional layers incorporated by the seamless end and text - a total of 32 layers and huge RAM requirements. With the small RAM model, I cropped away all excess transparency leaving only each puzzle piece and a tiny bit of "rectangle" of transparency surrounding it. This effectively lowered the RAM to nearly the requirements of a single file of the physical dimensions of one puzzle piece with the surrounding transparency. Of course the down side was that all precise positioning was destroyed and I had to manually place each puzzle piece in its correct position for final assembly. To do this I had to carefully size each piece then tweak its position to fit perfectly with the adjacent pieces. After getting everything lined up perfectly for the assembly I had to manually copy down the zoom and pan coordinates for each piece so that after applying various animations, opacity, etc., I could put the proper numbers into the program for final assembly. It wasn't easy and took several hours. Of course unless one is creating puzzles, this precise placement is a moot point and for "normal" slideshows it's unimportant. What is important to remember is to crop away all excess transparency when creating PNG files, and to not make them any larger than necessary for creating the resolution desired. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, Run dxdiag and I think you will find that the reason you can't run the large RAM model is the need to upgrade DirectX which is a free Windows download. The latest version is 9.0c. No one in their right minds would ever create a normal slideshow with the RAM load I used in puzzle.exe - it simply pushes the envelope on RAM use, but it does provide a way of testing the efficiency of one's system. Even if your system had a mediocre video card (it doesn't - you have decent hardware) it should play the high RAM puzzle, just not very smoothly. The fact that you get nothing indicates an earlier DirectX version. So as Ken suggested - from the START/RUN prompt type in "dxdiag" and click on O.K. This will run a diagnostic and reveal among other things the version of DirectX being used. If it's not current, just go to Microsoft's Windows upgrade center and install the latest version and everything should work perfectly. The AVI files you have been running for the past few years with pan, zoom, rotate were made with software rendering and low resolution. Typically programs such as ProShow Gold, ProShow Producer, MemoriesOnTV Pro, etc., render at 800x600 or less for DVD output. Even if they create an executable file at higher display resolution the files are interpolated up from the rendering resolution so that the final model is a low RAM, low resolution show. Hardware rendering such as used in creating PicturesToExe Beta 3 shows renders at the resolution you use for the originals. The higher resolution images coupled with multi-layer presentations raises the bar both on video card RAM requirements and on producing beautiful high resolution displays. As I said - no one would normally use 32 layers of full resolution objects on a single slide as I did in the high RAM requirement puzzle. As you will see when you get your DirectX upgraded, the actually appearance of the two puzzle models is quite similar but the video card RAM requirements have enormous differences. When we create our shows we quickly learn what to avoid to make them palatable to the majority of average video cards. Here's a link to one of my shows which uses high resolution images, but doesn't push the envelope on RAM. Try this and I think you should get excellent results with either system - but by all means test for the latest version of DirectX and make sure you are current with each computer. http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/vger2.zip Best regards, Lin

Very nice promo Gilio! I loved the sound of the burner's on the balloons when they descended for landing :-) It was a bit confusing for me to negotiate the menu's because of the language barrier, but quite intuitive once I understood that the promo was not underneath your "Arrow" on the JPG but that the arrow was simply part of the jpg with hyperlink to the promo show! Best regards, Lin

Ahh, that pretty well explains part of the issue. The 32 meg RAM on the video card is marginal at best and though some slideshows will work well ones with high RAM requirements will not. If you plan to use the pan, zoom, rotate features along with several objects on some slides, it might be best to think seriously about upgrading the card. There are a number of good video cards available, some of the older ones (not necessarily less-powerful) such as the ATI RADEON 9800 Pro card (the one I use) can sometimes be found on the web for as low as $100 (original cost well over $500 U.S. Dollars) and these are dynamite video cards which can run about anything. Others could perhaps make suggestions here as well...... Best regards, Lin

Hi Dom, There are perhaps as many ways to do this as there are photographers - LOL. There are myriad masking tools - some work better than others. Years ago I went through the majority of these and finally decided that the best and most precise way for me was to simply use the eraser tool and sometimes the history brush. It's time consuming, but do get a perfect extraction you really need to work at the single pixel level. What I do today, for example to make a PNG file containing an extracted image, is to first determine the original image dimensions in pixels (Image, Image Size) in PhotoShop, then create a new transparency of the same dimensions. Next I do a Select All, Edit, Copy on the image to be extracted. Close that image then do Edit, Paste over the open transparency which leaves a two layer file with the transparency under the original image. I use the Eraser tool at 100% opacity with a very large brush to quickly cut out the rough image I want then zoom in close and select a smaller brush to cut to the pixel level. If it's something which then needs all or some or part of the edges feathered - I just set the opacity levels on the Eraser Brush to various values and lightly brush the edges to make them slightly less than opaque so that they blend at the last couple pixels or so with the background the image will be overlaid with. Finally, I crop as closely as practical to minimize the PNG file size. Working this way I can get as perfect an extraction as I need depending on the final use of the image. This method may not work for everyone and using various masking tools is quicker, but there is no way which is more precise. Best regards, Lin

Hi Peter, Some slight misunderstanding - the issue at question isn't the amount of system RAM, but rather the amount of RAM on the video card itself. What the high RAM use puzzle tests is the video card not the system. The new version of P2E (version 5 beta 3) depends almost entirely on video card performance rather than the user RAM in the system. Ken's suggestion to test the DirectX is designed to see if the version you are using is the latest up-to date version available. Could you tell us which version of Direct X the test revealed? So you don't need to look it up again - just click on RUN then type in - dxdiag - and click on O.K. When the diagnostic runs you will see a version number (Direct X version ........ ) which is what we need to know. The latest version I believe is 9.0c . Anything smaller than 8 is probably not going to work properly and "could" explain the problems. Of course the important thing is that you can now see the shows, but if you run the "dxdiag" again, get the version number then clilck on the "Display" tab it will tell you the brand Video card and the amount of video RAM it has. This information could be also vital to figuring this out. Best regards, Lin

Hi Tom, This is a beautiful sequence with great photos and presentation. My only suggestion for possible improvement would be on the portion where you have the two framed images joining the background. If you were to slow down the "fly - in" on the two frames and move your keypoints so that the transition to the next slide begins while the two frames are still moving it would avoid the rather abrupt stop necessitated by the present iteration of PTE beta 3. The release version will have non linear capabilities which can be used to effect smooth starts and stops, but with the present beta stops are rather abrupt. The best way I've found to avoid that is to start the transition to the next image sooner so that the movement is still happening on the current frame as the show progresses to the following frame. To do this I've found that allowing slightly more time for the slide, then pulling the ending keypoints into the region beyond the time line (where the image disappears from view) and setting the starting keypoint on the following slide before the time line (again causing the image to disappear) in effect gives you a cross-transition where one slide is still going while the other is opening simultaneously. By pulling the end keypoints for the movement of the two objects into this "nether-region" you can, in effect, have the transition from the one to the other before the actual movement has reached the end point thus avoiding the abrupt stop. Best regards, Lin

He asked the same question some time ago and finally in Spanish with the translation: ========== "Hello, I am going to put my message in Spanish, since in ingles I do not find out to me. I am making a presentation with a called program "formulagraphic", of the sort of Neobook, Builder Multimedia... and a problem has arisen me when I want to connect it with a file exe done with Picture to exe. The problem is that if at certain moment that I want that the file of Picture is executed to exe from the FormulaGraphic, if I press the screen of FomulaGraphic with the mouse before exe of Picture is executed to exe, the presentation of picture to exe is behind FormulaGraphic in the screen of the computer and it is not possible to be seen. This would be solved if feasible of Picture to exe had the property to see itself on any thing that this then in the screen, is to say that it can happen to first plane when it is being executed. Thanks. I hope that somebody understands Spanish and it reads it." Ken =========== It doesn't seem that any of us have an answer to this question. To do what he is asking would require controlling Windows rather than the other way around. Normal executable code doesn't allow hooks into the operating system to control the order of presentation when two or more competiting programs vie for position. It's sort of like PhotoShop where you have the ability to bring one layer to the top or send it to the bottom. This can be done within a program but not within an operating system unless there is some provision made allowing this by the operating system itself. Lin