Lin Evans
-
Posts
8,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
12
Posts posted by Lin Evans
-
-
Sometimes when I mix media (MP3 & Midi) the synchronization feature cuts the last song off about a second or so before it's finished making an abrupt and poor presentation.
This may be difficult to "cure" from a programming perspective because the program is at the mercy of calculating the transition times and adding them to the play time given by the music itself. Sometimes this may be slightly in error. There may be no good way to precisely know the perfect length of the entire show, but if there was a provision to allow the user to extend the duration of the final image slightly beyond or cut it slightly short of the calculated time for synchronization with music, then the adjustment could be made so that things worked out smoothly.
This suggestion would be in keeping with the "flexibility" of P2E and solve the issue of premature end of image or an image extending well beyond the music.
Lin
As a "postscript" I did a workaround by using a sound editor to record four seconds of silence and a cut and paste to the end of the last song. This entails recording as a wav, converting the mp3 to wav, converting the midi to wav, adding the four seconds of silence, then saving the entire thing as an MP3. Sure it can be done this way, but everyone who uses P2E doesn't have familiarity with sound editors, or maybe doesn't even have one. It would be nice to make this possible without leaving P2E since it happens with enough frequency to be annoying....
-
Hi guys,
I know this isn't a "cure," but it is a way to sort of have your cake and eat it too. Throw Norton away and get AVG (it's free) which has no problems with the code and works as well or better than Norton for me.
I'll knock on wood.... but I've been using AVG for an extended period (since it was introduced) and it's detected and caught numerous viruses and I've yet to be infected while protected by it. My web usage is huge - and in our email alone we probably receive an average of five or six (we get hundreds of emails daily) virus attempts daily.
Lin
-
I doubt that copyright infringement is a major issue with a single frame from a quicktime movie. Most movies made with quicktime are either done by a photographer with a digital still camera, who, in such case, is probably already the copyright holder - or probably a low resolution clip of a movie trailer made for general distribution. But each person using material must make the decision about copyright for themselves.
A handy tip, I think.
Lin
-
Hi Bill,
Jim is right, it's very easy to us a sound editor (there is none built into P2E) to do about anything you wish with the sound, but it's not necessary to use an editor to play multiple selections in P2E.
I suspect you are looking in the wrong place - perhaps at the "sound" bar on the bottom rather than clicking on the "project options" then "Music," which is where you choose background music. The "sound" bar is where you would put a voice over or wav file for a single slide, in addition to the background music.
You can "stack" as many music selections (I suggest mp3) as you wish and you can sync the overall length of the sound to the slides. This will result in a fixed display time for each slide. This is calculated on the basis of the length of the entire music track divided by the number of slides and considering the transition times. The result is that sound begins with the first slide and ends just prior to the last slide fading from the screen.
You can also manually decide in "real time" where each slide begins and ends in relation to the music. Thus it's possible to have a slide appear exactly as a particular phrase or portion of a song begins or ends. This is in addition to the ability to place voice-over or individual sounds which would play concurrently with each individual slide should you wish to do that.
Normally, pre-recorded music fades at the end of a selection and there is a brief period at the end of each selection. This gives a pleasing effect and prevents a non-professional feel, just as if you were playing a CD. But, if you want complete control, then the way to do it is as Jim suggested. Get a good sound editor and you can easily customize the sound track, then time the slides either manually or automatically to fit.
Best regards,
Lin
-
Hi Deb,
You can decrease file size without changing the image dimensions - just how much and what hit in quality depends on numerous factors.
For playback at a given screen resolution (in your case 1024x768) there is absolutely no advantage to having an original any larger than 1024x768. "Original" in this case meaning the image to be used in the slideshow. If the image is larger than 1024x768, P2E will have to resample or resize to make if fit the dimensions. If it's smaller, to fill the screen it will have to be likewise resampled up to get to the necessary screen dimensions.
At 1024x768, you "should" be able to compress a jpg to around 180K or so and still have a relatively artifact free image. 1 meg (1000K) is way larger than it needs to be. What was the original capture resolution? Use PhotoShop or IrfanView, etc., to both resample and compress the images and you should be able to get the file size down to 200K or so which should display very cleanly at 1024x768.
Best regards,
Lin
-
I realize, Lin... Only a nozy question: do you have a backup of all your data? I think you have about 60 GB... (OS and programs probably occupy no more than 10 G).
Hi Guido,
Yes, as a professional photographer, I'm very careful with data. I have all data backed up on Ultrium (100 gigabyte high speed tape) and magneto optical media, and I duplicate all my photo archives on DVD media.
I don't generally back up programs unless I don't have original install media, i.e., web purchases, but since I use such a large number of programs re-installing and especially re-configuring takes days rather than hours - so a complete reformat and re-install is a major production for me. I have multiple systems, but use my fastest for production work and this is the one I tried this ripper on.
I've left a message and had a reply already from Andre. His suggestion was to download the 32 bit ASPI dll from the Nero site and put it in the EAC folder, but the latest 32b ASPI dll is already resident in my Windows/System folder - so I'll experiment and see if moving it to the EAC folder will make a difference, but I have my doubts.
Best regards,
Lin
-
After checking the forum, I'm not the only one having this problem (see link to thread).... It's difficult to say what is causing it, and it obviously is not a widespread issue, but I'm afraid there may be no resolution. I've over 20 years experience with programming and low level computer code and have not been able to resolve it. I do understand both Windows and ASPI very well. As I said in my other post, several freeware/shareware programs have not been able to find my CD drives, but commercial programs like EZ-CD Creator and Nero have no difficulty at all. Likely it's a Windows issue with too many registry entries and might be resolved by a clean Windows install, but I have over 70 gigabytes of data and programs which would take days to reinstall and configure properly, so I think I'll quit before I make more work for myself than I care to invest in.
I'll take your word that it's the best ripper available - I just wish I could try it, maybe on one of my other systems.....
http://www.digital-inn.de/showthread.php?s...&threadid=12902
Best regards,
Lin
-
Probably a great ripper, but like some other freeware type programs, not sophisticated enough to find my CD's (2 cd drives) and no apparent way to tell the program by drive designator where they are.
Commercial programs like Nero, EZ CD creator, etc, have no problem locating either of my CD/DVD burners, but several freeware programs including this one are clueless about their existence. There must be something frequently overlooked by programmers, or assumptions which are invalid. I would like to try it, but after numerous installs and attempts to "trick" the program into finding the CD drives, I've given up.
Best regards,
Lin
-
Well, I think a translation software cannot (for now) do better than Mark Twain when he re-translates literally his tale from French to English!
I'd like to read that re-translation - I can just imagine the humor.....
Lin
-
one of my translation sites says "Yell a blow."
I tried about 12 different translation packages and the majority couldn't understand the first word. They all understood the last word. I got "yell a blow," "bawl a blow," etc.
I suspect that the translation software is oriented toward business rather than colloquial conversation, and because of this, idioms and phrases which are common "slang" in a given language are lost in the translation. As Michel said, the subtleties are lost in translation. It does make it fun, and I suspect it's just as amusing to see the English to French translations when trying to decipher our non-sensible idiomatic phrases.
-
I am going to push a small blow of mouth !
Translation - I think - "I'm going to mouth off a bit....."
I can't help myself - I'm still ROTFLMAO
It's amazing how the translation software does a "literal" translation - I really admire those who have the energy to use it. I get bogged down just trying to make sense in my native tongue - I can't even imagine trying to translate each sentence with software. My congratulations to all our forum associates who do this! It's a credit to the energy and interest in this product that our non-English speaking participants have the dedication to do so. I seriously doubt that most of us who are native English speakers would take the time to use an electronic translator to translate French or Russian, etc., and participate on a forum like this. Best regards, and thanks to all for the dedication and participation here - great forum indeed !!!
Lin
-
What happened to the ability to add file names to each image through comments as in earlier versions? Am I missing something - I don't seem to be able to find it any more???
Lin
Never mind - I found it........... Thanks....
Lin
-
Now I've downloaded the Pictures Index Viewer and I'm having some trouble getting the text to show under the pictures. Can anyone tell me in 'simple' terminology what I might be doing wrong. I tried to insert my own text into the text file, but nothing shows up. Do I need to designate somehow which picture the text goes with?
I'm counting on getting some help here from you guys, because I'm about the only computer literate person in the house, and believe me "I ain't that computer literate!"
Thanks,
Nancy
Hi Nancy,
I'm pretty computer literate, and I can't get it to work either - same problem. I think maybe there is a problem either with understanding the requirement or with the code - maybe we can get some input from someone who is getting it to work. I'm trying version 3.0 I've replaced "mytext.txt" with my own text and saved it exactly as the original and this is what I get:
Best regards,
Lin
-
Data obsolescence is unlikely to be a serious concern in our lifetimes. Because of the costs of maintaining critical data in business, backward compatibilities are likely to be maintained for many years to come. I still can read data from my Kaypro 4/84 CPM machine from 1981 and files and software which worked on the first IBM PC's still work today on the latest versions of Windows.
More of a problem is being able to read the media platform. But the "up" side is that as newer formats become available, we can easily transfer data from one to the other. This has the added benefit of refreshing the code (in the case of magnetic media) and provides a means of keeping our archives current.
In short - I believe this to be not a serious problem. What can be and is serious, are color prints made in the 70's which are dying and turning sepia - and transparencies made in the 70's which are falling apart. Thankfully, we have readily available and reasonably priced scanners which may be used to salvage these while still possible.
Best regards,
Lin
-
Last April at a trade show at Texas A&M for the Texas School of Professional Photography, Fuji had a pre-release of their new top-of-the-line professional digital camera. I can't remember the exact number (as I am not moving my film from 35mm/645 to digital quite yet), but I think it is the S2 or S1 or something like that. This camera, I'm sure being that it's Fuji's top professional digital camera, will have many of the features of 645 film . . . I could be wrong, but that's my thinking . . . Just e-mail me if you want to know more and I'll search through my catalogs and magazines and find out what I can on it!
Lori
Hi Lori,
The last removable lens dSLR camera released by Fuji was the FinePix S2 Pro. The S2 is a six megapixel super CCD based sensor with internal interpolation (Fuji calls it "extrapolation") to 12 megapixels. It uses Nikon lenses and is quite reasonably priced at about $2200 (street price for camera body).
The S2 has excellent resolution, getting the best by using the interpolated 12 megapixel mode. It competes with the Canon D60 and Nikon D100. Though it's referred to as a "pro" model, it's really not in the same class with the Canon EOS-1D, EOS-1Ds, Nikon D1, D1H, D1x, Kodak DCS-760, etc., which are built to professional standards both in terms of body construction with dust & weather seals, super long shutter life, high speed burst mode, high shutter speed sync, multiple color space modes, all magnesium body, etc. The S2 is based on a Nikon medium quality film body and lacks the features generally considered to be of professional build quality.
It is in the same class as the Canon D60, Nikon D100, Sigma SD9, etc., which is an upper "prosumer" build.
Having said this, the image quality and resolution detail from the S2 is exceptional. If one's use doesn't require the various attributes of the true professional level camera body, the S2 can make a great tool and is definitely something to consider, especially for the advanced amateur photographer.
Best regards,
Lin
-
I'm curious. Did you omit saying anything about the Nikon 5700 intentionally or just because you have no experience with that line?
Hi Harold,
I actually have four Nikcon CP cameras - (2 CP950's, CP990, CP995) and also a DSC-F707 Sony and an E10 Olympus (very similar to the E20), but I don't have the 5700 or the Minolta though I have used both. The 5700 takes excellent photos. Like most of the Nikon consumer/prosumer cameras, it doesn't focus well in low light but does produce excellent results in normal to good lighting.
Trying to choose between these four is not an easy task. I would like to separate the E20 from the other three, since it's really quite a different camera. If shutter lag time is important to your photography, the E20 is the fastest of the group. It's also the most like a conventional camera. The real-time LCD review provided by the split-beam technology license purchased from Sony (DSC-D700/D770, DKC-FP3) is very useful in my experience.
The E20 is likely to last much longer than the others in rugged use, but whether or not this is a consideration is a different issue. I would not be afraid to recommend any of these excellent cameras. I think the best way to decide is to actually hold each in your own hand and see which fit's your own idea of a proper tool.
Lin
-
Maybe I can help a bit - I have over 20 digital cameras and shoot professionally using both digital and film.
First the professional level cameras:
Six megapixel professional level sensors are equivalent in nearly every way to 35mm color film. Because of the very low noise (equates to film grain) in the pro-level sensor, even a 4+ megapixel pro level digital camera will out-perform 35mm color film in nearly every conceivable case. My Canon EOS-1D 4 megapixel camera is as good for 99% of my color work and enlargements as any of my 35mm color film cameras. My Kodak DCS-760 six megapixel pro-camera is better than any of my film cameras with the exception of shooting subjects were moire (color aliasing) is an issue. Even my 3 megapixel Canon D30 is better in many cases than my 35mm color film.
The arguments that 35mm color film are "equivalent" to 35 megapixel digital resolution are simply wrong. The new Canon EOS-1Ds at 11 megapixels is far and away superior to any 35mm color film or transparency and pushes medium format color film. Because of the extremely low noise, digital images captured with sufficient resolution to properly define the boundaries of fine detail can be enlarged far beyond the limits of grain (about 16x20 inches) for 35mm color film.
Now the consumer/prosumer level cameras:
Consumer level sensors are tiny in comparison to pro level sensors. Noise is problematic at anything over about ISO 100. A five megapixel consumer level camera like the Sony F707/F717 takes excellent images, but pales in comparison to even the Canon D30 (three megapixel) where noise is an issue. Still, resolution is resolution. If trying to photograph details like fine print (writing on a lens, etc.) for product photography, the F707/F717 will outperform a D30 Canon. On the other hand, for macros or head and shoulder portraits, a D30 will blow the socks off any consumer camera at any resolution simply because three megapixel resolution is more than enough to capture all the fine detail in the limited geography of close-up photography. Distant landscapes with fine detail? That's another story.
Enlargement potential with consumer cameras, even the five megapixel Minolta, Sony, Olympus, etc., are limited primarily by digital noise. There is little difference in the enlargement potential between a four and five megapixel consumer camera capture. 11x14 inches is about as large as you will be able to print without the spectre of noise overpowering the image - just as 16x20 is about as large as you will be able to print 35mm color film or transparency captures.
Of the three cameras you mention - all are quite capable. The Minolta has more noise, the Sony is better in low light and the Olympus has much faster autofocus. Toss a coin. The Olympus is better made by far, but both the Minolta and Sony are excellent instruments. Try them out in the store and choose the one which feels best. As far as image quality there are few differences. Sony is somewhat limited by the MemoryStick, but makes up with incredible battery life. Peripherals are more expensive for the Olympus, but the glass is better. The E20 is very slow between high resolution shots - save time to the CF card or MicroDrive is slow. Sony can be used in absolute darkness - with holographic red grid focus aid or with NightShot infrared focus, you can get shots not possible with the other two.
I suspect you would be happy with any of these. On the other hand - spend $2100 or so and buy a D60, S2 or D100 and you have the start of a professional level system which will absolutely out-perform any of the consumer cameras both for image quality and overall versatility. More expensive - absolutely, but you are buying into a lens system (either Canon or Nikon) which can be used with subsequent cameras as the years go by.
Lin
-
While I'm at it, what do you (I do photography) use PX2Exe for, that makes one "worry" about stealing images?
I'm a photographer also, and most of my work is done for clients who will eventually (or not) purchase an expensive piece of art from a gallery. I really don't care if someone "steals" my photographs from a slideshow because I'm not selling the photograph per se, I'm selling the service of providing quality photos of a very expensive piece of artwork to allow the potential buyer to make sound purchasing decisions without spending a few thousand dollars in travel to see the art in person.
On photos which I do sell as photos, I use encripted watermarks which are invisible on prints, but can be detected electronically on the file itself. Only if an individual or large business would begin selling my work for profit, would I have any interest in pursuing legal action against them, and in most cases I would wait until they had already made a windfall profit to make the cost of litigation worthwhile.
By and large, it's a non-issue with me. I think that worry about it is completely overblown and that there is really little one can do to prevent a dedicated theif from stealing. A couple years ago when I was in Beijing, there were perfect copies of major MicroSoft software being openly sold on the streets for the equivalent of $10 per. Same but legal software in the U.S. was selling for over $500. They were complete with manuals, holographic seals, etc., I doubt that even MicroSoft would be able to easily tell that they were copies.
If a company with MicroSoft's resources can't stop this, I think we are kidding ourselves that we have any chance at all - so having someone steal a photo or two from a PTE slideshow is probably very low on my priority list of worries...
-
No matter what you do, there is always a way around it such as reverse engineering an executable file. I look at it this way: If a user has the technical skills and software to reverse engineer my executable code and wants my images badly enough to go to all that work to get them, let him have them!
All you can do is protect theft from otherwise honest people. A dedicated thief will always find a way around whatever you try to do to protect intellectual property. I doubt that even a dedicated thief would have much luck making much off most our images anyway - it's not like most of our photos are fine art masterpieces. Sometimes I think we are like an old dog with a dirty old bone that most other dogs wouldn't want anyway, but we will show our teeth, growl and protect it with our very life even though probably nobody wants it anyway :-)
Best regards,
Lin
What happened to www.wnsoft.com???
in General Discussion
Posted
When I try to reach the link http://www.wnsoft.com I get http://www.ballshooter.com/ - too weird!!
Lin