Lin Evans

Hi Select the slide you wish to remove the file name from on the slide list. Click on Objects and Animations tab to go to the Objects and Animations screen, Highlight "Text Comment" in the Objects List and press the Delete key. Save the PTE file... Best regards, Lin

Hi Adda, You can't modify the codes in the preset templates to change calls to exif information. This must be done by the developers. I'll move this to "Ideas" because, as Ken says, it's been discussed and needs to be considered by Igor for inclusion in a later version of PTE. Best regards, Lin

Hi Sue, As you can see from the responses, there are numerous ways to proceed with essentially identical results. Here are the advantages and disadvantages. The advantage of doing it as suggested by Xaver and Peter, with multiple slides and a simple crossfade transition (dissolve), is simplicity. You create four slides and simply dissolve between them. This can be done by creating the first and then copying and pasting it to create the second by adding the other portrait and then simply a third with the landscape desired. The down side is that if you want to do this on a number of different slides, you must duplicate your efforts and in the end will have a larger number of "slides" to deal with. In doing it as in my example, the advantage is template in that you have created a single but more complex slide which can be used over and again by simply "replacing" the elements with different images using PTE's replace feature in the Objects and Animations screen. Of course the down side is that you must spend the necessary time to properly keyframe the objects and the replacement slides must necessarily have the same aspect ratios and pixel dimensions as those in the template or it probably would not be worth putting in the time creating the template in the first place. There are indeed other ways of approaching this using masks, etc., but since you are really pressed for time right now, the "best" way to proceed is the way which makes more intuitive sense to you. Best regards, Lin

Hi Sue, There are several ways to do this. One way is as Xaver suggests. Another way this could be done is to first set sufficient time on the slide for all this to happen and then place the images (portraits) both in the same slide but on separate layers. That is, have one above the other on the Objects List. Then control the "appearance" of either by using the "Opacity" control. There is no need to use "masking" even though it "could" be used to do such a thing. Also you could add the landscape as an additional object on the slide in yet another layer and control its appearance by opacity and keyframes. It's quite feasible to do exactly what you wish by simply keyframing the opacity of the three "Objects." PTE uses the term "Object" to describe any image appearing on a "Slide." The "slide" is the "main Object" and any additional objects appear in that slide's "Layers" which simply means the "position" of the images in the Objects list beneath the main object. I have created a simple demo for you showing how this can be done. If you download then extract the following into a folder and then open the PTE file, you can study the slide and see how the keyframes control the "opacity" of each object over time. In the example (which is actually considerably larger in file size than necessary - I just grabbed some images) the portrait of the baby is set to 100% opacity and faded in on the left and the second keyframe (check objects and animations) is set to "hold" that opacity until it is faded to zero with the third keyframe. The second portrait of this child when she is about 12 years old begins with zero opacity on the first keyframe, held at zero percent opacity with the second keyframe until such time as it is to be faded in. Then it is faded in to 100% opacity by the third keyframe. Then both portraits are faded to zero percent opacity at the same time by their last keyframes. Simultaneously, the landscape is held at zero opacity by its first and second keyframes and then faded in to 100 percent opacity by its third keyframe. Once you have a single slide prepared in such a way and assuming that you have other slides you may wish to use in the identical fashion, you can simply copy and paste the completed slide and then use the PTE "change image" feature to replace the objects and background for subsequent slides. The original animation then serves as the "template" for subsequent slides. The only real "caveat" is that the original images need to be identical in dimensions or you will have to play with the zoom and pan settings or visually align each one after replacing the "template" files. My link to example Best regards, Lin

Hi Sue, By all means use jpg's rather than PNG files. Really the "only" time you should "ever" need to use a PNG file is if you have created an object where you want transparency so that the background shows through areas of your image. Otherwise, using PNG simply adds a great deal to the size of your exe file because it is uncompressed. Compressing in Photoshop at level 7 should give you excellent images. Also, there is no need to use images any larger than the display resolution "unless" you are doing deep zooms. For example, let's say you have scanned your images and you end up with a dimension of something like 3000 pixels wide by 2000 pixels tall. Almost no displays in "common" use are higher than 1080p which is 1920x1080. So to display these without a deep zoom in, 2000x1333 would be the optimal size. If you go into Photoshop and "resample" your 3000x2000 image down to 2000 pixels on the horizontal side (close enough to 1920 pixels) then the vertical will be 1333 pixels and Photoshop will automatically do this for you. If you intend to zoom in for a close look at a face, for example, then you could leave just that slide at the original 3000x2000 pixels. You would "not" need to redo effects in PTE because by default, PTE will automatically resize everything to fit the display being used by your viewing audience. That is you "visually" fit the image to the vertical aspect of your own display for each slide, and PTE will make it fit the vertical aspect of any display the show is shown on. You can use Photoshop to resize all your images, but it's "MUCH" easier to do if you download and install the freeware IrfanView or Fastone and use one of them (be sure and do a "copy" and resize and don't overwrite the originals). They have a "very" easy batch resize feature and it's much more "complex" to do batch resize with Photoshop. I suggest you make a folder and save "all" your original scans and never work with them. Copy them and work with the copy. If you get in trouble, just leave a message here and someone will give you a hand. Best regards, Lin

Hi Sue, One way you can achieve the "floating look" on a backdrop is to use PTE's "drop shadow" feature (Objects and Animations screen - Common Tab - Check "Drop Shadow" then click on "Customize" to choose opacity, angle, size and position of shadowing) - example below from one of my photos: Best regards, Lin

Hi Xaver, Yes, it could be considered such - but in this case a static change rather than dynamic changes via bridging keyframes. From a programming perspective perhaps the mixing done in the Screens tab then distributed across all slides just as the current background, gradient background or image. There are lots of possibilities and it isn't a major thing, but would add some utility, I think. Best regards, Lin

One thing which might be quite useful is to add "opacity" to the background image feature. Some time ago, as I remember, when a background image was universally applied to a slideshow, the image actually "appeared" in the Objects List and could be manipulated for each slide. With the later versions the ability to add a universal background image does not result in it being visible on a layer in the Objects list any longer. There are, of course, advantages and disadvantages to doing it this new way - perhaps more advantages than not, but it would really be nice if the "opacity" of the background image could be adjusted universally. By adding this capability to the Screen Tab, then background images could be made less "dramatic" right in PTE without having to manipulate them in Photoshop or other image editor. I believe that more frequently than not, a user might want a somewhat muted background rather than a normal image. Generally, when I use an image as a background and place it as a layer on the Objects list, I apply some transparency to tone it down and often add a pure white layer beneath. Actually, what would be perfect would be the ability to not only be able to adjust the "opacity" of the background image, but to be able to have "2" background images placed on separate layers and be able to adjust opacity for each. This would, for example, allow the user to use a pure "white" background on the lower layer and by adjusting its opacity, make a very pleasing combination with the image above. What I sometimes do now is to "mix" two images in PTE this way and screen capture the result to use as a background image. But how nice would it be to be able to do this all right in PTE? Lin

Hi Dom, Nice! Love the shadows and translucent reflections! Best regards, Lin

Hi Sue, What you want to do is very easy. If you click on "Project Options" then on the "Screen" tab you will find you have three choices. You can have a solid color, a gradient with either top/bottom or left/right of any two colors, or you can have an "Image" of your choice. First decide on what you want for a backgound, click on the appropriate choice then either choose the color or combination or an image from any folder on any attached drive. If you experiment with the "size" for the background "image," you will find that reducing it below 100% will result in a "tile" effect where you have the image duplicated multiple times. If you need to change the appearance of the background image, you will need to do that before you add it as the background by using an image editor. The background image does not appear in the "Object List" as an object for each slide so you can't adjust the opacity of it as if it were added to each slide individually. If you only have a few slides, you could add any slide as a background just by placing it a layer below the main slide by adding it as a separate object. In such case you can adjust the size, opacity, position, etc., of the background image individually for each slide. If you play with the "background" feature with just a few slides before you load the entire show, you will quickly learn how best to use this feature. If you have further questions, just ask here and one of us will help you. Best regards, Lin

Hi Melanie, Export them from Audacity at the defaults as mp3's then put them back in your show and I will wager that everything will work perfectly. Melanie, check your email.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Melanie, I think Dave is probably right - there is a slight difference in the way "Preview" and the completed executable files are processed. It's been discussed and is something Igor is looking into. This plus a possible single one of the multiple mp3's making up your sound track (I'm assuming you made it from multiple audios) having a variable bit rate could cause this issue. Even though you are using the identical audio settings you have used before, if you "sourced" one or more audio tracks rather than created them yourself, it's possible that one of them had a variable bit rate. I've had these kind of issues myself in the past, but have always used Audacity to run "each" audio through and export so that they are all identical in format. This has always corrected the issue. As strange as it may sound, sometimes one faulty audio track can totally disrupt an entire slideshow. The offending audio may play "perfectly" by itself in other players and "may" even play by itself in PTE, but when placed in a show along with other audio selections, it can cause similar difficulties. Best regards, Lin

Hi Melanie, Just so we are on the same page, if you click on the "help" then on About PicturesToExe, the version is 7.5.0 or is it a later iteration? If it doesn't say 7.5.10 (that's seven point five point ten) it's isn't the latest version. Just to be safe, if it's not, please install the latest version so we are all on the same page.... There have been ten updates since 7.5.0 So the sound track consists of a "single" mp3 which was constructed with Cool Edit? In the Project Options, Audio Tab, what does it give as the exact time length of the audio? When you click on the "Timeline" look at the ending time for the images. Is it identical to the length of time for the audio and does the waveform appear to end in the proper place in relation to the last slide? When you say the time is "out by an image" what is the display time for the image? In other words in "seconds" how far out is the synchronization. How large is your total project? If feasible, it might be a good idea to zip the entire PTE project and post a link so perhaps we can take a look and see if we can find a solution. If you can do this it might make it much easier and quicker because several of us can check it using different systems.If you go to "file" "Create Backup in Zip" the entire project can be zipped to a single archive. Best regards, Lin

Could you give us a little more information. Which version of PTE are you using? Which operating system, how many slides, how many audio tracks and how many separate audio selections? Does the video portion consist of only still slides, or do you also have videos in your show? Does the audio consist of only mp3's or are there other audio types? There are several variables which "might" impact the final playback. Does it start in sync and then go out somewhere along the time line or is it out of sync from the first slide? The more information you can provide, the more likely a quick solution. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dom, Are you using the latest version of PTE? The reason I asked is that I "think" you would: 1- Go to "Project Options | "Advanced" tab | ........... Excellent solution - one I didn't think of ....... As long as you don't need to modify or change the mask during the show the "mask as an Icon" would result in a smaller and more compact show than doing it via creating a video then loading the video as a single slide. Best regards, Lin

Hi, Masks are designed to work with a single slide. It would only be possible to apply a mask to an entire slideshow if that show were output as a video and then loaded back into pte as a single slide. Only in such a case it would be possible to run the entire "sequence" inside a mask. If the show consists of multiple slides which have not been converted to a single sequence such as a video, then to apply a particular mask to the entire sequence it would have to be duplicated for each slide. Best regards, Lin

To get what you want, choose Curling of Page transition, click on Folding (so there is a dot), Click on the "Left facing Arrow" - leave the default Roll up to Pipe, Radius 40 percent and the check in 3D volume. This should do what you are asking for. Best regards, Lin

Hi Robert, In answer to your first question - yes, the limit for data for PTE is two gigabytes. If a file is larger than this or really even "approaching" two gigabytes then it "may" exceed the limits for 32 bit functionality. How I would approach this is to take the file into another program such as Kantaris Media Player and see if it plays normally. Assuming that the file plays normally in another media player, they I would temporarily duplicate it and place it in a new folder. Next "attempt" to "replace" the blue error with the one in the different folder. If that still doesn't work, I would zip the file and send it to Wnsoft to let Igor and the development team have a look and see what's wrong. Unfortunately, there isn't a simple answer sometimes. It's actually the same with audio. Sometimes an audio will play properly in another player, but fail with PTE. The solution is to take it into an audio editor such as Audacity and output it in a very standardized (default) fashion which almost always results in a resolution to the problem. Likewise with a video which doesn't want to play. By taking it into your favorite video editor and outputting it as an AVI or MP4 it almost always results in a resolution to the issue. It's really difficult sometimes to get a handle on just what is causing the difficulty, but most likely there is "something" about the file which is not compatible with the library used by PTE. I've found videos which absolutely will not play in one of my several players, but will play normally in another. It's really not an issue "just" with PTE, but an issue with the complexity of video and audio encoding and compression. Best regards, Lin

Hi Rob, The "shortcut" is to click on the Tools button (bottom right of your screen in Objects and Animations) then click on "Ignore Objects Not Selected" as Dave says.... Best regards, Lin

Hi Eric, There are two ways to look at this. The first is that a particular version has everything you care about using - so no need to keep up with the latest changes and such because you are quite content with what you have and it serves your purposes. There's nothing wrong with that logic, except that when something new does come along that one might like (like video support, for example) and they decide to update their version, their learning curve is steep and complex because many "other" things have changed as well with various versions separating what one presently uses and the one needed for the new feature(s). Then, it gets a bit more convoluted. The person who has missed all the intermediate changes then has many, many questions which need to be answered. Their first recourse is then to read the manual, but manuals and user guides are virtually "never" completely thorough enough that they can substitute for practical "experience" with using the newer features. This is somewhat analogous to the new purchaser who first buys the product and is somewhat lost about how to do the things they have seen done. To solve this issue, the PTE forums have been, in my opinion, a godsend. When the developers and users come from many different countries with differing languages, cultures, etc., it is doubly difficult to convey subtleties in use via the user guide, so members who use the features daily fill in the gaps and help keep things running smoothly. As more and more new users are drawn to this great product, this task becomes more time consuming for those who help with tutorials and advice. Then comes the issue of users who have been using PTE for many years, but have not kept up with changes. They too are unfamiliar with new terms, interfaces, menu choices, positions and such and they also need lots of "hand-holding" to get on track. But they are even more difficult to help because unlike the new customer who had never used PTE and never formed use "habits," the "experienced" user - one experienced with different versions, has to "unlearn" much of what they are already familiar with. This makes the task of those supporting the learning process even more taxing. Eric, you say your are "still on 7.07 as you prefer it," but how do you logically "know" you prefer it when you haven't used the multiple versions above it? I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with staying with version 7.07, but there have been "many" features added and numerous changes which are all beneficial for the user which you "might" find very useful. It's difficult to give useful "advice" to someone who asks about upgrading and say that when someone says it's a good idea that this is only an "opinion." Of course it is an "opinion," but it's an opinion based on "experience," and therefore perhaps a more useful opinion to the petitioner than one from a user who has not worked with the new versions and new features. Don't you think that is a logical assumption? Spreading the learning curve over multiple upgrades rather than trying to absorb all the changes in one large "gulp" might be a useful strategy. Just saying..... Best regards, Lin

Hi Tom, Indeed it was a lot of money for a digital camera. At the time it was all by itself - a true 6 megapixel pro-body jewel - the closest thing to it was about one megapixel and the DCS model Kodak which was built in cooperation with both Nikon and Canon so that either could purchase the respective body model camera and use their existing 35mm lenses, was an incredible innovation for its time. It had an optional removable AA filter (which I bought), came with its own very good software and took amazingly good low ISO images. It was the first "truly" professional level digital camera. Fortunately, the prices began to drop WAY down when Sony introduced their first "so called" professional model in 1997- the DKC - ID1 (about $1800) which I also bought. It was "less" than a megapixel but did take very good images and great macros. Then in 1998 Sony introduced a dynamite 1.5 megapixel model called the DSC D700 followed almost immediately by an improved model, the DSC D770 - I bought both. They were about $1700 originally. Then they made a model with a "had picked sensor" which was otherwise identical and sold for a bit over $2600 originally. I couldn't see the difference so I waited until the prices dropped to buy one. I still have the D770 and the DKC I D1 - LOL. These old 1.5 megapixel Sony's actually took great images - see below: http://s194715615.on...y/s/sony110.jpg It's been an interesting ride.... Best regards, Lin

Just keep in mind that there are two ways to reduce file size. If you use greater compression which is one way, you "may" end up with artifacts if you go too far. On the other hand, changing the "dimensions" of the image by resampling will not affect the "quality" as long as you don't change compression. About as far as I would suggest going with compression is the Photoshop equivalent of level 6. If you use more compression you will find jpeg artifacts in nearly every file. Best regards, Lin

Hi Mur, Maybe try with another browser - it's "possible" that you clicked on the link "before" the last update and that the browser is trying to find the wrong file name. If you clear the cache in the browser you are using and try again it probably will work. I've just tested it with three browsers and it work fine for me at the present time. Best regards, Lin.

Kolor - the inventors and developers of Autopano Pro stitching software, etc., are breaking new ground here - I just signed up as a beta tester for their new technology.... Check out this video: Link To Demo by Kolor in Iceland.... Lin