Lin Evans

Beautiful show, Jean-Pierre. Excellent example of how p2e can be used with innovative techniques to produce both pleasing aesthetics and amazing transitions! Best regards, Lin

Hi Kelly, Just download the regular version from the main page but don't take the defaults - put it in a different folder and simply run either version. The release of Version 5 will have all the bells and whistles that the original had plus all the new features, but the beta version is simplified for debugging. Again, just download and install the regular from the main site (not the forum) and install it in a different folder, or just install it as the default and download the beta again and install it in a different folder. It' O.K. to have both on your computer and your registration key will automatically allow each to work, but they just need to be physically separated in different install folders. Lin

Hi Michel, Click the link again, it's been modified so all files are contained including new executable.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Michel, True! Yes, but I've not really finished it so am waiting until I finish the Star Ship Enterprise addition then I will post all... Been gone most of the day so haven't had a chance to finish it yet. Best regards, Lin

LOL - It's an American expression meaning "I couldn't help myself" - "I had to do it" - No, each star is part of a single object. All will be revealed soon, I'm still working on putting in the Star Ship Enterprise. But here's a start: The starfield is composed of a blue/black layer overlaid on a transparency. The blue black layer has many "holes" from 1 to 5 pixels or so through which the transparency is revealed. The twinkle and "shine" comes from a white layer between which is constructed in PhotoShop using the Sponge tool to varigate the white with black "sponge-like" pattern. This layer is made larger than the screen and rotated (in this case about 160 degrees) during the length of the display. This varigated "sponge-like" layer also has a bit of red and yellow splotches. The line represents a "meteorite" and consists of a transparent "line" (not a very good one though) with a small rectangel of the same color as the starfield masking it and revealing it. Lin

http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/startest.zip New link above has all files - pte, png, jpg, etc. including new executable..... Brief explanation: Starfield background made by creating transparent layer and overlaying (paste in PhotoShop) a blue/black jpg. The eraser tool was then used with 1, 3, 5 pixel size circles to create starfield cutouts and a "line" to represent a meteorite. This was saved as a PNG so that the transparent part is the star cut-outs. A white jpg square was then created and the "Filter effect" Sponge was used to create a ramdomized sponge-like appearance with dark and light areas. Some red and yellow "splashes" were added and this was inserted behind the starfield PNG. This variagated backdrop is then rotated 160 degrees during the show to provide the star "twinkle" as the "holes" variously reveal dark or white or red or yellow depending on their positions. The "Big Dipper" stars were surrounded by a splash of blue to set them off. A photo of Haley's Comet was made into a PNG and moved across the field and the Starship Enterprise was constructed from two images - one modified to make a third which has red rather than yellow orange on the tail "exhaust" A photo of Orion Nebula was made into a PNG and added along with a midi-Startrek intro. Just fooling around guys..... Lin Lin

Hi Al, For many years I used medium and large format platforms for this but I've switched to all digital. I have an older Kodak MF back (16 megapixel) but I honestly get just as good results with a variety of medium resolution digital SLR's and a couple fixed lens digicams. For this particular type photo I use either an 11 megapixel Canon EOS-1DS, my 10 megapixel Sony R1 (fixed lens APS sensor), or my Sigma SD10 (10.3 megapixel sensor but only a 3.4 megapixel file). The Sigma with a Foveon X3 processor actually gives me incredible pixel sharpness and I routinely make poster sized prints on my Epson 9600 from it. The Sony R1 is an incredible little camera for this type work with plenty of resolution and a really nice Zeiss designed lens. For extreme macro work I use the Canon 1DS with either a Canon F2.8 100mm macro lens or one of several Sigma lenses. Stitching can indeed multiply the resolution and is a great way to get medium or large format quality from a 35mm digital. One of my web friends Max Lyons actually stitched 196 frames made with his six megapixel Canon D60 into a single seamless 1.09 gigapixel two gigabyte image made at Bryce Canyon. He had it printed in sections on a LightJet and displayed an 8x12 foot print at PMA in Las Vegas three years ago. At the time it was the first gigapixel image ever made with a 35mm platform digital camera. The results were stunning and much higher in resolution than any 8x10 LF negative scan. He actually had to write his own software to handle it because PhotoShop barfed trying to process it - LOL. I spent an hour or so at PMA examining the print and I've never seen such detail. It even trumps the fantastic BetterLight scanning prints Stephen Johnson gets. Peter Grote was also there at PMA and I spent about a half hour discussing the BetterLight with him. He had a beautiful 43 inch by 17 foot panorama printed on an Epson 9600 which he had taken in Nepal in the Annapurna's. It was fantastic, but I really think Max Lyon's print was cleaner and showed more detail. So indeed stitching works well as long as the subject is amenable. Actually the same goes for scanning backs. If the clouds are blowing, the leaves are moving, etc., there are "issues" but when conditions are right these methods are truly great. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jeff, Yes, it's an amazing process - I wish I could actually visit Jon's studio but it's in Bali now so unlikely - It is sort of a different use for P2E but one which has been effective for some of my gallery clients. We use it for this type art, jewelry and other finely detailed art objects. Some of the art which my clients sell runs into the hundred thousand dollar plus costs and many of their buyers are in other countries. Being able to not only furnish their clients with photos via CD but also with a dynamic slideshow can help with the buying decisions "before" they spend the money to fly to Santa Fe, New York or other locations to examine the art in person and seal the deal. Best regards, Lin Hi Ken, That's a good question. I've never watched the whole process but Jon has it somewhat automated and his studio is in Bali now. He's trained a number of artists there who work for him and even though no two pieces are the same, they can use common design themes applied in a different manner on different pieces. I'm sure this speeds up the process. I would love to visit his studio in Bali and photograph the operation - perhaps some day I will be able to do that - but also he probably has some processes he wants to keep proprietary and I understand reasons for that too. Best regards, Lin

Most current Windows computers have zip capabilities. Usually you can right click on a file and one of the options will be to create a zip file. If you find your computer doesn't have the capability to zip then you can purchase PKZip off the web - it's not expensive. To unzip a file, assuming you have that capability and I'm quite certain you do, just use the "run" command. Click "start" "run" then change the default from "executable" files to "any file" by clicking on the down arrow. Browse until you find the zipped file and click on it and you will be offered choices to "run" or "extract". If you want to, you can run a file without "extracting" the executable from the zipped format, but if you wish, you can "extract" to a folder of your choice and then you will have the executable in its native format. 106 megabytes is "WAY" too big to email. Even commercial email systems such as used by IBM, Hewlett-Packard and so on internally will sometimes "choke" on a file that large. Definitely put it on a CD and "mail" it through the post office - don't even think of sending anything much larger than 10 megabytes via email. Best regards, Lin

First, you need to be sensitive to both your own email provider and that of the person you are sending the file to. Many email providers and especially "web mail" addressed such as yahoo and hotmail have limits of about 1 megabyte for files sizes. So if you are sending an executable file to a friend or relative who has a typical web mail address then you need to keep the image sizes and total file size under 1 megabyte. On the other hand if you are sending your slideshow via a broadband connect to someone else who has broadband, then you need to find out what both your limits and the recepient's limits are. In many cases it may be 10 megabytes. Finally, you need to zip the file and send it as a zip rather than an executable because "many" providers will simply strip off any executable attachmets and the recepient will never get it. The fact that you locked up Outlook may mean that you tried to send a file larger than your provider allows. Best regards, Lin

I love to play with slideshows and really enjoy the incredible power of PicturesToExe, but my profession is primarily photographing art for clients. One of the main features I love about the new PicturesToExe is the high resolution capabilities and the power to present slow scrolling closeups of detailed art objects. The link below is to a sample of how I will use this to present art objects for my clients. One of my favorite artists is Jon Anderson. John is a native of Arizona, but left an engineering career to pursue his artistic goals and has become the world's foremost Fiore polymer clay artist. He creates these designs in bread loaf sized polymer clay "canes". The intricate designs are then stretched again and again until they are sometimes nearly microscopic. The clay is then sliced like potato chips with each tiny tile containing the indicate design and colors which were once as large as a loaf of bread. These tiny "tiles" of polymer clay design are then molded around animal forms made of clay or wood then the entire piece is baked in an oven which expands the clay to an ultra-smooth surface of intricate beauty. No two designs are alike and there is never any paint used - all colors and designs are entirely made of polymer clay. Even under microscopic inspection, these art pieces are incredibly beautiful and the designs have to be seen up close to be believed. This is where PicturesToExe shines for me. It allows me to zoom in to my high resolution photos and reveal the beauty of art objects so my client's customers can better appreciate what they are purchasing. Here's a link to a short "slideshow" consisting of one polymer clay bear. With the exception of the two text slides, only one image was used for this. It's nothing fancy, just how I use PicturesToExe in my work. http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/JonAndersonArt.zip Best regards, Lin

Hi Ken, Something strange - I can't figure out why the link has p23 rather than p2e????? It works for me on the link on the page above you reply but here it is again just in case: http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/puzzlesmallRAM.zip Best regards, Lin

Hi Jean-Pierre, Try this one - it's still 32 layers but much smaller in terms of RAM video requirements. Probably not worth doing though for the future because it's way too time consuming to get the positioning correct. http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/puzzlesmallRAM.zip Best regards, Lin

Hi Michel, Here's a link to a low RAM version of the "Puzzle" I did. Each PNG is much smaller, but in doing this I loose the ability to automate the positioning so it's probably not worth doing - takes WAY too long.... http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/puzzlesmallRAM.zip Best regards, Lin

I'm amazed at how much these compress and how large the empty transparency portion seems to be. I just looked at the RAM requirements for one which was 4.4 megabytes in load size and it was 97K bytes compressed. I cropped it with perhaps a half inch of transparency surrounding the puzzle piece and the RAM requirements dropped to .32 meg so the transparency portion is exacting a huge load on RAM. Now if I could just figure a way to keep the alignment correct for the assembly of the pieces at the end of the movement I could reduce the memory requirements for the whole show to a tiny fraction of it's present load size. I guess I could manually line up all components by keeping the original cropped size until I found the exact coordinates for each individual piece. Then I could write the numbers for each piece's pan location and insert them for the final assembly. There may be an easier way, but I'm not certain how to proceed. When I first decided to make the puzzle I began to do it this way but it was terribly time consuming and that's why I left the full sized layer for each component since the positions were precisely correct as long as the dimensions of the individual components were not changed. I'll have to play with it and see if it's feasible to do it this way. Obviously, for most slideshows this is not really a consideration because rarely would anyone want to have so many layers active and precise alignment would not usually be an issue, but it is an eye opening experience to see just how large these PNG files can be with extra empty transparency areas. Best regards, Lin

Hi Michel I'm not sure exactly how to calculate the load. The total of the file sizes for the puzzle and background is less than 5 megabytes but I assume during the time when all are in flux it's loading 31 of these each second. It does run smoothly on most of our systems (we have seven desktop systems), but not on a couple of our notebook computers and it's really slow on my wife's Dell 930m. Our desktop computer are all fairly new with decent video cards so I guess we need to use the slow notebook to test shows. Actually, I intended this puzzle show to be rather a "torture test" to see what we could expect from pushing the limits. I think designing this type graphic would probably require minimizing the file size and that's lilkely why game programmers generally use 256 colors and smaller moving objects to keep everything working I'm not certain of the effect that layers has on the graphic load, but probably the fact that there is simultaneous movement of all pieces for about 10 seconds is where the load really comes from. I would assume it takes less memory to display a static image than one changing size and direction but I don't know exactly how this works with an executable rather than a video type file. It will be fun to try and work out some systematic way to determine how not to exceed the limits. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jean-Pierre, I think you are right - the reason I used the larger file sizes was that it's very easy to maintain precise positioning because each piece of the puzzle remains in the position it was when cut from the original image. Doing it this way one can use zero pan and 100% zoom for each piece in the final stage when that piece connects to the rest of the puzzle and the fit is "automatic". Since I have lots of processing power and a very robust graphics card, I didn't think about the effect it might have on a less than ideal graphics environment. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dom, Having 31 layers with all the simultaneous actions apparently pushes all but a very powerful video graphics environment to the limits. I've run this very smoothly on my development machine which has an ATI Radeon 9800 Pro card and plenty of (3.2 GHz) processor power and RAM (2 gigabytes) to run it. On my wife's notebook computer the frame-rate is very, very slow - about what you were getting on the original executable - perhaps 2 frames per second or so. But I have a friend with an older Dell notebook which has an Nvidia card which runs it very smoothly too, so I think too many levels with simultaneous animation just pushes the limits of graphics on many systems. Perhaps this is something we need to be aware of when creating our slideshows so that we build for an average rather than super graphics environment. I'm actually shopping for a new notebook computer for myself and I wil carry this executable with me on a 2 gigabyte USB flash stick to "test" the video environment so I'll be sure and get one suitable for high resolution 3D graphics. Best regards, Lin

Hi Ken, Priceless! This reminds me of when I was a youngster in the late 40's - an old Dutch farm couple lived next door to my grandparents in Williston, North Dakota. My grandfather had a large wheat farm and a cattle ranch and used lots of the latest "gadgets" such as a tractor and various farm implements but we still milked by hand - always accompanied by the pair of "barn cats" who loved to get a squirt or two and hung around just in case bossie kicked over the bucket of milk, which happened too frequently when I was milking - Ha! The old Dutch couple living on the small farm down the road still farmed the "old ways" - cut their sheaves with a scythe, stacked them to dry like the old couple in the series, beat them with sticks to knock off the grain, etc.. They had a few chickens and ducks, a sow and a couple milking cows and the old man was very nice to me. He taught me to milk with "both" hands, how to pop the udder a few times to get the Jersey/Guernsey to give up some milk - LOL. It was a simpler time and I'll always cherish the memories. Thanks for a trip back through time..... Best regards, Lin

Hi Dom, I think the one Ken linked to is the four piece puzzle which goes with the tutorial. What you want, I think, is the pte file for the 30 piece puzzle. Here's a link for that one: http://www.lin-evans.net/p2e/puzzle30piece.zip Best regards, Lin

Ahhh the Claret - that's got to be it! LOL - actually the whole thing is an optical illusion so even with two good eyes my friend the brain can interpret it differently every time we blink. It's the "expectation" which creates the illusion..... Best regards, Lin

Hi Jean-Pierre, That's strange, there must be some quirk in the executable which isn's being interpreted correctly. I'm glad you could create the file from the pte elements and get it to work. Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, Indeed - but I suppose it depends on one's purpose for the show. From a photographer's perspective who produces images (and shows) for clients who are primarily interested in the aesthetics such as portraits, weddings, nature, landscapes, etc., I think the important issue is to keep the zooms to a reasonable amount and definitely concentrate on the artistic merits to evoke a feeling or "mood" for the production. In such cases it's only necessary to not exceed the practical limits and avoid creating too many artifacts of interpolation which could spoil an otherwise great production, especially when the show may be projected via an LCD projector, etc. On the other hand, for the photographer who specializes in technical photography for a different client (circuit boards, highly detailed art objects for sale, etc.,) where there is sometimes a need for extreme zooms, the information is quite necessary and relevant. But it gets even more technical - LOL Dave's approach assumes a linear relationship between pixel count and "resolution" which are actually "not" one and the same and his assumptions are based on primarily digital camera acquisitions. For example we would typically assume that two cameras producing equal file output sizes would have similar optical resolution and that we could then use the assumptions based on pixel count for the optimal zoom figures. In many cases this assumption is warranted, but certainly not in all. To be precise, we need to work from optical resolution rather than from native file size in pixel count. As an example - my Nikon CP990 (3.34 megapixels native file size) produces an optical resolution of 900 horizontal by 900 vertical lines per image height while my Sigma SD10 (3.4 megapixel native file size) produces an optical resolution of 1550 horizontal by 1550 vertical lines per image height. So we have two cameras with pixels counts which are practically the same, but which have vastly different optical resolutions. Not only are their true resolutions extremely different, but the degrees to which the images can withstand interpolation and still maintain excellent image quality differ even more. My 3.4 megapixel SD10 actually outperforms my eight megapixel Canon dSLR's and my 10 megapixel Sony R1 when it comes to interpolation and holding image quality. In fact, it approaches my 11 megapixel Canon 1DS (4064x2705) in enlargeability for some types of capture and exceeds it for others. Then there is the entire area of scanned film which is another complete can of worms because the true "optical resolution" and thus ability to withstand interpolation may indeed be much higher than the pixel count from the scan would imply. The bottom line is that we can only "approximate" these figures and must take each individual photograph as a unique part of the equation. We simply can't create a "rule" but rather a "guide" for this type operation. As long as we realize that we are dealing with "a rule of thumb" we won't get into too much trouble, I think. But Dave's point is well taken - we must indeed be sensitive to the degree that we incorporate zoom and the eventual environment where our shows could be displayed. Of course we must first and foremost be attuned to the aesthetics and not loose the "baby" in the bathwater...... Best regards, Lin

Hi John, It sounds like you may have a zero where you should have a 66% and a 66% where you should have a zero. Best regards, Lin

I tried, but can't get it to "stick" maybe Igor can tell us if it's possble to make the default to have access to "All" messages without changing the setting each time. Best regards, Lin