Lin Evans
-
Posts
8,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Lin Evans
-
-
:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:.**:.:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~
The Cox Family wish you
BEST WISHES FOR THE FESTIVE SEASON AND THE NEW YEAR
Ken and Shirley
:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*:.:*~*:..:*~*:..:*~*
Photo by
Hank Nienhuis
And best wishes to you too Hank and to your friends and family from ours...
Lin & Sherry
-
Thanks Al - the Key file was actually truncated for some reason in the transmission - 10 bytes were left out including the ending quotation.
Support has already emailed my friend a new zipped unlock key and all is well. Fantastic support from the Support Team at Wnsoft - thanks to all.
Best regards,
Lin
Lin,
This is what the key should look like:
REGEDIT4
[HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\PTE]
"key"="xxxxxxxxxxxxx"
As long as it ends in a quote symbol, it should be OK; no need for "=" at the end. I would delete the "+" and replace with the "********", making sure the last symbol is a quote symbol. Don't delete anything else.
And, you are right, it should be 231 bytes in size, and be sure to change the name to "PTE.KEY".
If this is not the case, then Igor can help - maybe not until Monday, though, as he normally takes the weekend off. Best of luck to your friend.
-
Hi Ralph,
Thanks much for both the explanation and link. I just checked his email and the file is 10 bytes short or 221 bytes when saved in Notepad as a file "reg.key". Also it doesn't end with the equals sign and quotation so I suspect it was corrupted because it was sent as an attachment.
I forwarded his email to Igor at wnsoft support and asked if they could resend it as a zip file. Hopefully that will "cure" the problem.
Best regards,
Lin
-
I suggested a friend purchase PicturesToExe which he did, Today he received an email with what was supposed to be an attachment of his registration "key" but it appears instead of a registration key file to be something really strange. He's not very comuter literate so I asked him to forward his email to me so I could tell him how to proceed to unlock his copy but I'm unsure myself about this one.....
It's been too many years since I've seen a P2E registration key file, but isn't it still a file with an extension?
What he received looks like this:
REGEDIT4 [HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\PTE] "Key"="0uzP57kC/RawlfLDyHdowRCiaDeRnTr9LFAshLZa20Sw31GPRria5gNiqcw3/s6qas7buhPLkKhqmdsoZ87iI014H/F6dt1yYM6Gcul3Iot4c5vNnkxfpZ77e3WYlGFyLHvs+**********
Just in case it really is the registration key I've deleted a part of it and replaced it with the "*********" but I think this is not right.
This looks like perhaps the "content" of the file rather than the file itself. I'm at a loss as to inform him how to proceed other than by asking for another email. Is it possible his email program could have done this?
Lin
-
Lin you can do that now if you enable the nav bar- permit control of show
just tried it on a synced show and the pause /break key stops the show+the sound
i always enable nav bar and mouse -- dont believe in taking control away from system owner
but i had never tried the pause/break key -- thx for mentioning it
ken
Thanks Ken,
It does indeed! My mistake. Thanks for the reminder. I had not tried it without the navigation bar being displayed but the Pause key does stop and resume the show when the "permit control of show" is checked.
It works slightly differently than with ProShow Gold in that any transition effect in operation will continue until the slide coming into display has appeared where in ProShow Gold the transition effect is also paused, but the important thing is that there is indeed a way to pause and resume without having to have the navigation bar visible.
Best regards,
Lin
-
One of the features of ProShow Gold which is very useful is to be able to pause the executable while in process by pressing the "Pause" key on the keyboard. This effectively stops both the presentation of the slide image and sound. Pressing the Pause key another time resumes the show and background sound from the exact place it ended when the Pause key was pressed.
This feature allows someone who is presenting a slideshow to stop and start without begining the show all over. Obviously with PicturesToExe we can make a manual show - something which ProShow Gold can't do. We can start, stop, reverse, etc., the manual show but we have no way of stopping an auto-advance slideshow mid-stream and resuming. This could be a very nice improvement if it could be implemented.
Lin
-
I've been searching for a while to get good streaming slideshows and in the end elected to purchase a nice flash template from Winklet Web Design. I also can get quite nice fast shows for streaming online, but I need to use ProShow Gold in order to do this. I can keep the file size down to a reasonable 10-15Mb if I keep the image resolutions low (and small) and use low quality audio.
Here's a sample:-
http://www.carolsteele.co.uk/pages/slideshow/album_03.html
To see the flash slideshow go to my main intro page at:-
http://www.carolsteele.co.uk or http://www.devon-weddings.info
and hit the button for the flash portal.
Hi Carol,
I use ProShow Gold as well for the Ken Burns effects but am anxiously awaiting Igor's implementation. - actually the Flash slideshow I've linked to is a ProShow conversion trom MPG2 to FLV Flash via Riva Producer.
The reason many of us don't want to use the same protocol as ProShow is that they use what is deemed to be a dangerous Windows Active X component which invites hackers to implant virus and trojans. It does work quite well in that you can get nice smooth transitions and excellent fades, etc., but it precludes MacIntosh users from watching which is why the interest in Flash.
The aprox 340,500,000 byte show I linked to is actually a worst case scenario where I've used a bitrate of 1600, a frame rate of 29.7 and a rather large file size of 640x480. This taxes all but the most robust client equipment and requires about a 12 megabyte per second download speed to run without hesitation.
The Riva Flash FLV implementation is excellent and not subject to the 16,000 absolute frame limits of SWF Flash so that there is no practical limit to the length of the show. The one I have linked to is 27 minutes in length with full sound. As an MPG2 file it's a bit over a gigabyte in size. As an optimized Flash file its nearly 340 megapbytes but as a full resolution executable it's only about 62 megabytes which shows the relative overhead carried by MPG2 and Flash compared to the executable. When coverted to a ProShow Active X it's quite good at under 80 megabytes.
The Ken Burns effects add a tremendous overhead because they require separate images for each transitional frame in any pan, zoom, rotate, etc., When these are converted to true video such as MGG2 or Flash the addition of nearly 30 frames per second for each transitional frame is added to the already larger files so that the end result is a honking big one.
I may do this slideshow again with Rive by making a much smaller frame and see how much improvement I can get.. If it could be brought down to about 150 meg in files size at 27 minutes in length it would only require about five megabytes per minute which would bring it much closer to what many could achieve for a smooth show. I also used lower quality sound, but the sound really isn't the big overhead it's the bitrate which is a killer and the bitrate must be high to handle smooth fades.
I like your slideshows and think that in many cases the smaller Flash implementation would work well but probably not for all. We usually offer our shows in DVD, Executable or Flash depending on the client's ability to read them. Primarily we have Flash for our MacIntosh based clients.
Best regards,
Lin
-
Lin,
It works better now for me too. However, perhaps because the "network" was busy this AM, the show would suddenly stop until the stream caught up with it, continue on for a bit, and then stop again.
I agree with you that this is not a satisfactory way to distribute one's shows. I much prefer to download a show and watch it at my leisure on my own pc setup (perhaps with the benefit of large-screen projection), even if it is a show of over 300 mb.
Hi Al,
Yes - that't what usually happens when the stream download can't quite keep up. Because the data is actually being deposited to a temp file, if you go back and try to run the show again after it temporarily hangs up a few times it will run smoothly unless or untill the temp file has been disrupted.
It's a pretty inefficient way to display the shows unless the person viewing has a really fast and efficient internet link. It works for us for most of our clients because they generally have T3 links. Generally even a good cable which download 4 mps or better will run it smoothly, but I would much prefer a system which spools this same show as an 80 meg rather than a 340 meg file. The executable for this same slideshow is under 80 meg.
Best regards,
Lin
-
There are actually two issues here - to simplify. First is the issue of image processing to get the bet image for the intended purpose. What one does to a digital image for "print" purposes, and what one does for "display" purposes are often a good bit different.
For print purposes the image is captured in either RAW or jpg then processed accordingly. The RAW image has the advantage of having the full bit complement and can be adjusted for a variety of things such as levels, color balance, saturation, white balance, exposure, etc., before converting to either tiff or jpg. The primary difference in a print ready file and a display file is size and sharpness. Sharpening should ordinarily be done after all interpolation and for print output it's generally overshapened as compared to what one would want for display purposes.
The jpg file must be post processed as the 8 bit file it is unless it's first converted to tiff where it can be set to either eight or sixteen bit or even saved as a proprietary format in PhotoShop, etc., Of course if you plan to save the work and visit it again it needs to be saved and manipulated in a lossless format such as tiff until you either display it or archive it.
As Maureen covered, the 72 ppi or 180 ppi, etc., is simply a print "tag" which determines how many pixels per inch will be the chosen density at a particular print size. This has absolutely zero to do with display image quality. Most present day computer screens will display at somewhere around 96 pixel per inch so when a file has a particular size such as 1600 horizontal by 1200 vertical (about 2 megapixels) it will display on a 1:1 ratio when the video card is set to a resolution of 1600x1200 pixels. It would be too large to see completely at one time on a 1024x768 resolution screen, etc., so the display size should be chosen accordingly.
Just make your images look like you wish them to appear (assuming you have calibrated your monitor) and size them according to your intended audience. If you plan to project them then set the image size in pixels to correspond to the projector's resolution (800x600 - 1024x768, etc.). If you plan to put them on a DVD then my suggestion would be to either crop them to the final aspect ratio of the display or pay careful attention to the software being used so that you don't loose the important portion of your image to necessary crops for maintaining the proper aspect ratio on a TV monitor.
As for file compression, I would suggest trying to keep the overall file size down to under 300KB to avoid overstressing the hardware and promoting a smooth slide response.
Forget trying to display you image for slideshow purposes in the same quality you would for still image at full resolution - it's just not feasible to expect quite as much because of the tremendous variation in the client equipment. Some who play your shows will have low resolution screen displays and mediocre video cards with minimal memory while others will have state of art equipment. The "art" is in compromise to get the best overall presentation without loosing those in your audience who are equipment challenged.
Best regards,
Lin
-
early bird gets the worm -- i got it at 03:01 am -- 49.99 mb
but locked now 07:14 am
ken
Sorry - my server was doing strange things and I had to reload the file this morning. It "should" be working normally now - keeping my fingers crossed - HA!
There will be about a 10 second delay with the opening slide and text frozen while the buffer fills then the show should start. The running time is about 27 minutes.
This one is a real "torture test" for Flash. It demonstrates all the reasons why it's not very likely to work well for everyone. The file size is nearly 345 megabytes and the running time of the slideshow is 27 minutes. This combination means that the client who runs the show on the web must have a broadband capable of sustaning downloads of about 340,500,000/27 or over 12 meg per minute. With less you get hang up, freeze, start - stop, etc.
The only way to get the file size down it to diminish either the frame rate or the bitrate or both. If the frame rate is less than 29.7 frames per second you get flicker and jerky transition and if the bitrate is set under 1600 you get poor fades. The bottom line is that it's just not a great way to really get quality slideshows unless the client has considerable computer and internet power.
Those of you on cable with truly fast broadband download will probably find it works very smoothly but without optimal equipment it's a compromise. Hopefully Igor & company will find a better solution. The Active X solution which PhotoDex uses is quite smooth and works well for most but not for MacIntosh users. It also carries the danger of virus/worm infestation by hackers so for now I'm at a loss to come up with something better than Flash. I could diminish the image and show quality and get the bitrate and file size down, but then the quality is marginal.......
Best regards,
Lin
-
Hi Ronnie
Sorry to have been so slow to reply to this - had a nasty cold for the last couple of days!
I don't think that the issue of quality (flash versus exe) was really being raised here. Rather it was an issue, perhaps, of PTE including some form of flash export as convenience for those wishing to present their work/images/show examples on a website. PTE already does the core of the work with regard to the creation of a show, and what has been raised here is more to do with the end formats available to the user. Once, the 'exe file' was more a solution to the fact that narrow band internet was simply unable to 'display' shows of any quality at all due to the need for huge compression. As a creative media form Flash has come more into it's own as a 'format'. In many cases the quality is very good though may lack the 'punch' and depth of an exe show. However, many users producing PTE shows, and who have websites too, may appreciate an option allowing them to provide a 'preview trailer' (at least) in Flash format rather than have viewers download a rather large exe simply to find it was not what they thought?
For me these are just ideas, keeping an open mind I guess about what might be useful or possible for future developments of PTE - after the next huge update for which most of us, I am sure, are very excited.
Beth
Hi Beth,
Hope the cold is better - I thought I would post a link to a slideshow I just put up in Flash FLV done with Riva Producer. It's a ProShow Gold slideshow, but probably will give you some idea of what we might expect in terms of P2E version 5 displayed as a Flash FLV show.
I suspect the quality of this one is perhaps about as good as we can expect from Flash with a reasonably large slideshow and numerous pan, zoom, scroll effects. This one was done with a large bitrate so is about as smooth as I can get the transitions and fades to work in Flash. It's 27 minutes long and the Flash code is a bit over 320 megabytes. It has a 10 second buffer so will be about 10 seconds after you see the screen before the actual show begins. With a reasonably fast video card, broadband and decent CPU it should be tolerable. Click the link to try it....
http://www.lin-evans.net/colorado/colorado.html
Best regards,
Lin
-
Lin,
if you were preparing images for display on, say, a 42" HDTV; what order of resolution would be appropriate?
John
Hi John,
That's a tough one and the answer may depend on the actual display screen being used. The "standard" for HDTV allows for approximately a two megapixel display, but the actual screen being used may be progressive or interlaced. If interlaced, this "resolution" at broadcast is divided into interlaced scan lines each of about a megapixel. If the screen being used is an LCD type I would try to match the actual resoluion of the display type itself which could be variously up to 1024 by 1024 but with the wide screen aspect probably 1024x768 would work well.
I would think experimentation might be the best way to decide in this case. Standardized DVD output at the highest resolution usually works pretty well on most of our customer's screens whether CRT type or LCD but if the display "allows" for input of a computer executable we find 1024x768 works pretty well for us.
Lin
-
Oh boy I must be pretty dense. Never thought to change the resolution on my laptop. Once I changed that to 1024 x 768 pretty much all my "jaggies" are gone.
Yes, it helps very much to match the projection resolution to the native size, otherwise you're dealing with on the fly resampling which can often introduce unwanted artifacts.
The problem is that many today use high resolution screens to display their executable slide shows and when displaying a 1024x768 slideshow at high screen resolution one either has a postage stamp sized image for the slideshow or the program must upsample from a native 1024x768 to whatever it takes to fill the screen. Neither are satisfactory solutions in most cases.
Our solution has been to duplicate the slideshow executables using higher resolution originals for the executable for screen display and 1024x768 or 800x600 (whatever the projector's native display size) for the projector. It's really quite easy to do using a freeware program such as IrfanView where you can batch resample and at the same time apply sharpening, etc., as necessary. Then create a menu on your CD and call the appropriate show.
Lin
-
Hi Lin
Thanks for your reply, and the link to an earlier thread where I notice you advocate the use of Riva for flash creation. I think in this instance I (and I believe the initial poster) were asking about the value of having flash 'export' built in to PTE in some form, rather than having to transfer to a 3rd party program (extra expense, additional workflow). It may or may not be feasible for Igor at this stage (particularly as he is working hard on the architecture for the next release). For large flash projects I use Macromedia (now Adobe) Flash, but I would still find built-in flash export to be of great value - as would many who have asked about getting their shows on the web. It will be interesting, I imagine, to see what Adobe do with Flash (now that they have purchased Macromedia) - with their extra developmental and promotional power I could see Flash becoming even more commonplace than it is already!
Just a few little thoughts...
Beth
Hi Beth,
What I meant was that Flash, as a solution, was discussed numerous times in previous threads and dismissed in favor of somthing better for the the upcoming version. The downside of Flash is that it doesn't handle fade transitions very smoothly. (PhotoDex) ProShow Gold elected to go with an Active X method which makes for very smooth transitions but carries the inherent threat of virus/trojan contamination so I believe Igor has something better in mind than either Flash or Active X for version 5.
I suggested Riva because it's the least expensive way to get a quality psuedo-streaming Flash show from an available AVI file. The price is about $30 and the player is free. There are numerous Flash solutions as you know, but many use the frame limited SWF (limited to an approx 16,000 frames) format which limits a 30 fps slideshow to 9 minutes, far less time than many need. Riva uses the FLV format which has no such limitation so works well with the exception of smoothness. In the past I've posted links to slideshows made with ProShow Gold using Riva to convert to FLV Flash. These slideshows also use the Ken Burns effects which P2E version 5 will have. The consensus has been that though they are "satisfactory" for a web show, there are better options which Igor and the other developers wanted to explore.
Best regards,
Lin
-
This has been covered in some detail - go here:
http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=3547
Lin
-
It is no good bringing me into it Ken I thought "bling" was a typing error. Ah! 'Blingkin' marvazing!!!!. Now I see it "Blinking marvellous"
Reminds me when I was at school in the 30's the English master mocking the Hampshire accent with "Smawijja" meaning "What is the matter with you".
Ron [uK]
I think it's origins are from urban American blacks who originally used the term to describe showy or ostentatious jewelry.
Lin
-
Hi Dave,
Very nice! I recognized many of the places (RMNP & Maroon Bells areas) and enjoyed the show very much. Welcome to the P2E forums!
Soon Igor & company will have the Ken Burns effects which will allow some of the beautiful panorama's I know you must have made. I did a similar show using ProShow Gold for some friends and clients and am looking forward to duplicating using P2E soon - maybe by Christmas we will have a beta to test.
Here's a link to mine - I'm sure you will recognize lots of the same places (RMNP, Maroon Bells, Mt.Evans, etc.).
http://www.lin-evans.net/coloradonature/rockymtn.exe
Best regards,
Lin (Berthoud area)
-
Hi Lin
I hope I did not cause you any offence with my previous reply, it was not my intention and I apologise if I have, reading my comments again they were worded in a way that could easily be misunderstood. I have always thought that getting slideshows onto disc (DVD, SVCD, or VCD) is the one great weakness in an otherwise superb piece of software, and I confess to taking every opportunity to bring this to people's minds.
I thought that the images in your presentation were first class.
Regards
Stonemason
No, no offense, not at all. I agree that it's imperative to find optimal solutions for quality DVD, etc., presentations. There are issues, however, as Photodex has found out with ProShow. The compatibility issues and interference from already installed burn engines which are incompatible with ProShow's own engine have caused them many difficult moments. It's difficult to say which is the better approach - that is to embed the code in P2E or allow the user to use external solutions to burn from the AVI template as is done presently. Perhaps a way to do either might be a solution but Photodex has had a nightmare of compatibility issues which has turned many away from an otherwise decent program. The answer isn't easy because of all the different equipment out there. When ProShow can burn a DVD the quality is excellent - actually in my experience much better than what we get by using Ulead, but there is a sizable percentage of users who have been totally frustrated trying to get it to work with their own hardware.
Here's a link to a typical "situation" which is ongoing on dPReview where seemingly a conflict between Nero and
Roxio burn engines are stopping the user from being able to burn a ProShow slideshow:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp...essage=15867535
Best regards,
Lin
-
Very nice slide show Lin.
Sometime during the first 5 minutes of the show my sygate software firewall popped up a message that pxplay.exe (parent process rockymnt.exe) wanted to send an ARP packet to a local server. I have no idea why pxplay.exe would need to access the network. This may be normal for pxplay.exe. I just denied the request and the show kept on playing. Probably not a big deal.
I have an old test computer (500 Mhz dual processor Dell running XP SP2) that I was using to run the show. The slow fades were flickering. It seems like they flickered even more if a pan was taking place at the same time. This same computer does not flicker on P2E during slow fades. It will be interesting to try a v. 5 beta on this old computer to get an idea of performance optimization.
thanks,
tom
Hi Tom,
That is rather strange - perhaps something which PhotoDex has embedded to get a handle on how their slideshows are being used - I wasn't aware of this but it's interesting to know about it.
I suspect there are a couple things going on with the fades, especially when there is a zoom in or out happening simultaneously. Since zooms are constructed from multiple frames of incrementally different interpolations it makes sense that at some point there would be an interaction between the host computer's native display size and a particular zoom or "crop" ratio. As you know when we take a starting resolution and take increments such a 50%, 25%, etc., we have much less screen aliasing than when interpolating to odd values. Since during the process of zooming we must pass through these odd values it stands to reason that we would see some moire and artifacting. Since the frame rate is probably 30 frames per second or so, these effects would be seen more obviously in scenes where there was continuity of smooth backgrounds such as with water, etc., than where the backdrop consisted of vegetation which could act somewhat as camouflage. Perhaps I've way off base with this line of thinking, but it seems logical.
Best regards,
Lin
-
Lin,
I enjoyed watching your show very much - the wildlife photographs are superb! You are fortunate to be right in the heartland of such fantastic mountain scenery and with all that wildlife around you.
In general I like the pan and zoom effects, especially where they contribute to a sense of motion in a slideshow. They can be used very effectively to convey the feeling of moving into or out of a scene, and also where one wishes to indicate lateral direction of movement from one scene to another. However, as a continuous effect throughout the entire show, I'm afraid that I, personally, would prefer to be able to just sit back and admire a gorgeous scene or a beautiful wildlife photo. I find (and again it's just a personal thing) that I have more difficulty concentrating on an image if it is in motion than if it is still. When the motion stops, then I feel that I have more freedom to let my eye roam around the image and admire all the little details that I seem to miss when it is motion. And some of your images deserve to be admired for a long time.
As for shimmer, the show runs flawlessly on both my desktop (2.8 MHz) and my new HP laptop (3.2 MHz), both with top of the line ATI video cards. However, at times there was a slight shimmer of Moire patterns in the very fine detailed textures during the pans and zooms.
At the SuperCircuit I had some difficulty with some of the ProShow shows, as the pans seemed to be a little jerky, but this was entirely absent with your show. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that I was running a projector and laptop screen simultaneously. Another idiosynchrasy I found with the ProShow entries was that whenever I showed a ProShow slideshow, I had to exit from my PTE "intro" slide back to the desktop and start over with the introduction screen, as the objects in PTE seemed to seize up.
One thing that's interesting with shows utilizing the Ken Burns effects is that one seems to be able to make a longer show with fewer images, as one's attention is taken up with anticipating what is coming "around the corner" and so the images can be left on-screen for a longer time.
On a final note, I found the background sounds a little monotonous. Again, just a personal observation and preference. I like the idea of background sounds, as they give presence to the show, but maybe they could be a little more varied, and spaced out a bit more.
Overall, though, I thought it was an excellent production, and one that I will definitely watch over again. Thanks for posting it!
Hi Al,
Having the KB effects do allow a longer presentation with fewer slides because it does cause the viewer to "anticipate" what will happen next rather than just stare at a still image. I think perhaps it would be nice to pause on the stills which are not panoramas once the movement has finished rather than immediately fading to the next slide. It's not convenient in ProShow Gold to do because you must insert multiple copies of the slide - that is there is no provision for holding a particular frame once the effect has ended to to achieve that we must insert another and use a fade into it which has the effect of simply holding the last frame for whatever prescribed time.
Unfortunately, I have no control over the background sounds which are an integral part of this particular music. If I were mixing background sounds with the music I would have done it a bit differently.
When the P2E beta is released I will attempt to duplicate this show and post both so a comparison can be made between the two for file size, smoothness of transitions and effects, etc. It will be nice to see the P2E approach versus the ProShow Gold approach to a similar result.
Best regards,
Lin
-
Hi Lin downloaded your slideshow which played with no problems on my amd 2.5ghz, 1.25mb ram, and nvidea fx5600 graphics card pc with no problems. However I feel that your excellent images were let down badly by the over use of pan and zoom effects, which re-enforced my own opinion that Igor and the teams time would be better spent improving PTE's ability to produce good quality mpg files without resorting to frameserving to other applications. My opinion is that this would have been of more benifit to the majority of PTE users rather than the effort spent on pan/zoom which seems to have the ability to turn a very good slideshow into a very tedious experiance very quickly.
The issue of whether to use pan, zoom, rotate, etc., is highly subjective. We've had much more positive feedback than negative feedback so must go with the majority opinion.
The issue is that if P2E doesn't offer what the market wants they will quickly be left behind and soon out of the presentation slideshow business. The market has been quite clear - even from long time P2E users - in asking for the Ken Burns effects. P2E is one of the very few programs with which the developers have offered lifetime free upgrades on, so to maintain any sort of reasonable business model they absolutely must offer what new customers want and that is clearly the direction they have elected to go.
There is no mutual exclusivity concerning the creation of good quality mpg files and producing superior pan, zoom and rotate features. I'm certain that Igor, Alex and Sergey will produce a superior product which serves all our needs. The Ken Burns effects will be there for those who need and want them and for others who prefer a traditional approach they will not drag down resources.
Best regards,
Lin
-
Hi Lin,
Your show worked OK on my machine but I will test it on my Laptop later - Pro Show normally will not work on my Laptop (no problems with PTE). It will be interesting to see what happens with this one.
In the meantime, please advise: What resolution is the optimum for this show?
Skies are pretty badly pixelated on my 1280x1024 LCD Monitor as though it were a 1024x768 show which has been configured to "fit to screen".
It also appears to me that some of the zooms are "over-cooked"?
By this I mean that, in the zooms, the images seem to be too small to allow zooming in to fill the 1280x1024 screen and then zoom out by a factor of 2 or three. To do this the image would have to be at least 2560 or even 3840 wide to get the same quality throughout the zoom.
Not criticisms - just trying to get a feel for the technology in readiness!
DaveG
Hi Dave,
The show was optimized for 1024 x 683 pixels (normal dSLR aspect ratio) excepting the pano's which were 683 pixels on the short axis. The images are "fit to screen" so that 1280 x 1024 would be a bit of a stretch. These sizes were chosen so as to not overtax resources on older systems and usually work quite well at 1024x768 screen resolution.
The "average" for our customer's screen resolution seems to be around 1024x768 which is what we generally aim for. High resolution images of over 2 megabytes seem to "tax" ProShow Gold's resources and don't generally operate smoothly on less than optimal resources so we tend to keep the images smaller which has the effect you noticed on higher resolution displays when the display is set to greater than 1024x768.
Best regards,
Lin
-
there are some clips at this site
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windowsme...ase.aspx#sysreq
and system requirements req'd if you want to really test what your system can do
my system did not meet the
Optimum Configuration
(to play 1080p video with 5.1 surround sound)
but it would play the clips with no problem
and i downloaded all clips and the ones that would let me i burned into a dvd with no problem to the enjoyment of the grandkids so i would suggest having a look and see what your box will do instead of worrying about what is coming -
i have made 350 mb p2e shows just to see if i could -- experiment with what you have -- you might be surprised
ken
These are pretty big files for the small amount of run time - I suspect P2E will be much more like ProShow Gold in that the file size for the specialized Ken Burns effects will not be so big.
For anyone who wishes to test a file I have a slideshow which I created for some of my customers and friends with ProShow Gold. The show makes extensive use of the Ken Burns effects and has a running time of about 27 minutes. The subject matter is Colorado nature and wildlife and the download size of the executable file is about 59 megabytes. If you have broadband feel free to download it and test your system to get a feel for how your system may perform with P2E once version 5 is released. There is no way to be certain that it will be exactly the same, but will probably be close in terms of resources required. I suspect that P2E will be more efficient so this may be a "worst case" scenario. Here's the link:
http://www.lin-evans.net/coloradonature/rockymtn.exe
Best regards,
Lin
-
Thank you Igor for you reply.
The possibility of using an effect that needs big ressource is precisely THE problem !!!!
My conclusion to what you said is that in the future the slideshows will work as or probably better than those created currently, BUT there will be slideshows created with PTE unreadable for one third (!!!) of the population.
This is an enormous change to the philosophy of your software !
.... and that, for an effect more related to video than to photography !
Letting 2 versions in circulation as suggested is purely unrealistic and doesn't change anything to the fact that there will be PTE slideshows in circulation unreadable for a great number of us.
Hi Patrick,
If there will be PTE slideshows in circulation unreadable for a number of PTE users, there will also be dozens of other developer tools creating slideshows also unreadable for the same people.
The present direction for slideshows universally is to use these effects. Just because they are available doesn't mean you must use them, and just because you don't perceive a need for them doesn't mean that the many other people who create and use slideshows don't perceive a need for them or won't use them. I'm unsure why you would complain about "optional" features? You "will" eventually purchase a new computer and that computer "will" be more powerful than the one you now use. This is simply the way of technology. When you do purchase a new computer P2E will allow you to not only use these features but to view slideshows created in the past with or without them.
You can't view slideshows created on a MacIntosh on your present computer but you will very likely be able to do so on a future system. You can't run CPM programs on your PC even though there are numerous great programs written in CPM and CPM86 which no longer work on our PC's unless we have extremely old technology which won't read today's software. A software developer can't avoid progress and stay competitive. PicturesToExe is, in most of our opinions, the finest tool for slideshow creation available for the photographer but it's falling behind the curve because of not having the Ken Burns effects. Igor has gone above and beyond to bring us the best in refinements and transition effects and now the pan, zoom, rotate which will make P2E not only competitive but better than the competition.
Some of our automobiles may be capable of achieving speeds of 200 miles per hour but few of us will ever drive them anywhere nearly that fast. Saying that a certain percentage of us can't drive at these speeds because our roads won't permit it doesn't stop the manufacturer from making vehicles capable of this. Having such a vehicle will allow us to use this power and performance when we travel to places where such performance can be used even though we may not be able to use it where we live. Some day our highways will be improved and we can then enjoy the power and performance which is latent and unusable at present. If you were able to "upgrade" a Fiat to a Ferrari at no additional cost would you complain because you or others you know couldn't "use" or enjoy the additional performance right now?
The new P2E is like getting a major upgrade to our automobile for life at no additional charge. We don't have to drive it to the limit unless we want to, but the performance is there for those who need it or want it and at no cost to those who are happy with Fiat performance.
Options should never be dismissed just because they don't fit into our own personal needs or desires. If it were possible to create these effects to run smoothly on older technology Igor would do it. Unfortunately there are practical limitations with which we must contend. In a couple years these will all be moot points because everyone will have upgraded systems which will allow the user to choose from all available options. Let's not quibble over progress - it's going to happen whether we like it or not.
Best regards,
Lin
Merry Christmas from Colorado
in Slideshows & AV Shows
Posted
Just a simple slideshow with Christmas music - mostly Colorado and New Mexico nature and wildlife with some Jon Anderson Fimo Polymer clay art - all taken with my Sigma SD10.....
Broadband necessary for download - about 80 megabytes. It's actually an executable file renamed to a zip extension so after download please rename to sigma05.exe to play.
http://www.lin-evans.net/sigma05/sigma05.zip
Lin