cjdnzl

Ok, Ray, here is another experiment. Reminder: my computer comprises an Asus P4E800 DeLuxe m/board, a 3.00GHz Northwood CPU (P4), 1 GB ram, 800 MHz frontside bus, an Nvidia Geforce 6600 GT graphics card, and Win 2000 OS. I took my earlier test (see my post above), and using Irfanview I batch resized the 12 images to 8500 * 5665 pixels, which made the images 144MB each, near enough to your 150 MB. The compressed images on disk were around 20-odd MB. I opened up PTE 5.1, imported the 12 images (cf your seven images), which happened at a rate of about two images per second. I set up the output for a 16:10 screen, and just for fun I zoomed a couple right out to about 495% of original. I then clicked on Preview - and the show ran impeccably, zooms and all. Then I made an exe file, which turned out to be about 60 MB, and it also ran impeccably. Since your machine is considerably more powerful than this one, there is clearly something wrong. I don't suppose you are running Vista? that could be your problem. Colin

Ray, I assumed that your quoted file size of 25MB was the uncompressed size. but I see that your uncompressed size is actually about 150 MB, so my trial is not relevant. Apart from having reservations about your file sizes, and the amount of detail available from a transparency, I can't offer any more help as your computer is a lot more powerful than mine. But, you didn't say what graphics card you have. That might possibly be your problem. Colin.

No, I don't think PTE has a limitation in that direction. I have just set up a trial with 12 images of 25 MB each, as level 12 jpegs (the highest) in Photoshop, each jpeg is about 5 MB, uncompressing to 25 MB in memory. I loaded these into PTE 5.1, ran a preview, and then created an exe file. There were no problems either with loading the images or running the preview or exe file. My computer comprises a 3.00 GHz P4 Northwood CPU, 1 GB ram, and the OS is Win 2000. I suspect that the error message is from Windows and not PTE. Did the message have an error number, about an 8-character alphanumeric number? That would be helpful. Also, I know you said your machine was adequate, but could you post the specs, and also were there any background programs running? Colin

My understanding is that PTE does respect the ICC profile and gamma as applied to the monitor or projector showing the program, so if the monitor or projector is calibrated, and the slide show images are from a calibrated/profiled source, the images should display properly. I don't think PTE does color space conversions 'on the fly', so to speak, nor do I believe it should. PTE's function is to assemble and display images as supplied by the author without altering color space or balance in any way. A calibrated monitor or projector will show the proper colors - and if it doesn't, it certainly isn't PTE's fault. If the author of the program is working with an uncalibrated monitor when fine-tuning the images, or using aRGB or other color space for images that will be presented on equipment calibrated for sRGB then the final show color balance can be anywhere. Unfortunately, owing the the relative expense of hardware profiling equipment, many rely on visual calibration with Adobe Gamma or similar programs, at best a compromise. DVD's are a different kettle of fish; the color balance of a TV is set by the technician who sets it up, often just by eye in the field. PTE DVD's cannot be expected to compensate for TV variations. One only has to look at the banks of TVs displayed in the stores to see massive variations in color, contrast, and brightness among the various models. There is a problem with (some?) ATI graphics cards and/or drivers, which in essence prevents PTE from using the monitor profile, the graphics output then being effectively uncalibrated. ATI reportedly appear to be somewhat uncooperative when requested to fix this problem. For more information, use the search function in this forum. Nvidia graphics cards do not have this anomalous response, and if building or buying a computer, or replacing a graphics card, bear this in mind when choosing your card. Colin

*.pte files are data files that tell PTE (the program) how the show is put together; image location, screen duration, type and length of transitions, pzr movements, music files and any synchronization, in short a 'blueprint' of how the show is constructed from the image and sound files. *.pte files are not DVD files. *.avi files are the precursor files to burning a DVD. Colin.

Firstly, I think your treatment of the images in this show is very artistic, the cropping and muted colors are very attractive, as is the music, and the choice of title font is great. However (after that first sentence you just knew there would be a 'however'!), I am rather puzzled by your framing technique. I took the liberty of measuring the dimensions of your images, and I find that the overall size is 1024*780 including the frame, which leaves narrow black bars on the sides of a 1024*768 monitor (the image is scaled by the graphics chip to fit the vertical dimension, which shortens the horizontal by about 16 pixels). The size of the actual image is 963*635 pixels (more or less) which gives an aspect ratio of 1.52:1, slightly wider than a 35mm or 3:2 digital frame. Do you have a reason for not simply sizing the show to 1024*768 without any frame, so it exactly fits a monitor - and a projector - with those pixel dimensions? If the image has a 3:2 ratio, or is shown on a 5:4 or a 16:9 ratio screen, the image will simply fill one dimension, and leave black bars in the other. Colin

I use a screen capture program called 'Bulent' s Screen Recorder' . It has a price but you can use the trial version for an unlimited time. I like it because it will capture screen images direct to a folder with a single press of the F12 key, and it is very fast. You can press F12 while running a slide show or any program and capture images as they appear, or you can just hold down the F12 key and capture frames at near-movie speed. When it 'takes' a picture, it makes a sound like an slr shutter, so you know you've got the image. It will also capture AVI files as they run. I had an occasion where a camera club friend bought a CD containing a slide show of award-winning images, from IIRC an Australian society, but as this chap was one of the now rare people without a computer, he tried without success to play it on his DVD player. The program turned out to be an executable made with ProShow Gold, so of course it wouldn't play in a DVD player. I played the show on my computer, and used Bulent's to capture each image as it displayed - all 160 of them! - and then ripped the sound track with Goldwave, a sound editor. It was then easy to use the images and sound to to produce a DVD, which appeared functionally identical to the original executable. If anyone is is interested in this program, the latest version (4) can be downloaded from this website: http://www.thesilver.net/ Be aware that this version puts small logos on the saved images until it is registered. However, an earlier freeware version 1.5 can be downloaded from: http://johnbokma.com/softwarerecommendatio...enrecorder.html and does not superimpose logos. Colin

You need a sound editor program like Audacity (free) or my preference, Goldwave (free for limited use). You load the sound file into the editor, and save it out again under the protocol you want, mp3. Goldwave needs Lamewin to handle mp3 files, and I think Audacity does also. These programs are available to download from the 'net. Colin

Uncontrolled quoting can be a pain, but you can edit the quoted text to remove unnecessary wordage. Properly done, quoting can remove the need to scroll backwards to re-read what is being commented on; sometimes in a popular thread one has to go back several posts, or even to a previous page. I am in favor of selective quoting. But quoting the whole post could be a sign of laziness, or perhaps not realizing editing can be done. Colin

I haven't loaded 4.31 as it was before my interest in PTE, but the current versions, 4.48 and 5.1n use a program key that is resident in the registry, and upgrades will find it there automatically. Igor has committed PTE to lifetime upgrades, so once a current key is in registry you can just keep upgrading. The VideoBuilder section of PTE (Contained within the PTE program but activated separately) requires a second key which is likewise stored in the registry, but it is renewable on a 2-yearly cycle, i.e. VideoBuilder upgrades are free for 2 years, after which another license has to be purchased if you want to continue upgrading. When you purchase PTE and/or the 'deluxe' version (which unlocks the VideoBuilder section) you will get an email with the registry keys as text files, which are then inserted into the registry via Regedit. As for your old computer, be aware that PTE 5 has many addtional features that were not in the 4 series, specially the pan/zoom/rotate functions (known as PZR functions), which together with program changes use hardware rendering via the graphics chip. This is done to enable the best possible image display, but because of this the graphics chip has a lot of work to do, and not all video cards are up to the job. Your old computer will need a graphics card with a minimum of 128 KB (preferably 256KB) of memory, something like an Nvidia GeForce 7600 or better, and also a CPU running at 1GHz or better. The graphics card specs will apply to your new machine as well. Colin

A good thought, but not, I fear, the right answer for Steve's problem. 6-bit LCD displays are used primarily for improving the response speed of the screen, and the 'missing' colors are simulated by 'dithering' adjacent pixels, which is claimed to closely approximate an 8-bit screen. For all practical purposes, a 6-bit screen is adequate except for color-critical applications where absolute color accuracy is required. For these applications, Eizo or similar screens are used, at a price of a couple thousand dollars. My Dell laptop has a 1650 x 1050 6-bit LCD screen, and an Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT GPU, and it shows none of the artifacts that Steve's shows. I'm not a betting man, but if I was I'd lay money on his problem being the graphics processor. Further, Steve stated that the effect is visible when projected with a data projector. which takes his screen out of contention. Basically there are two broad types of laptop computer; those designed for business, and the so-called 'gaming' machines. Business machines - which Steve's IBM Lenovo is - generally have more modest GPU cards, since most business applications do not use rapidly changing graphics. If they can handle a DVD they're ok. Any bigger GPU chip will generate more heat, and shorten battery life unnecessarily. Gaming machines are oriented towards considerable GPU processing power, for obvious reasons. PTE by design uses hardware rendering of graphics, which means that the GPU is doing the all work of putting the picture on the screen. This approach to the program's design ensures the best possible image quality - and PTE is renowned for probably the best image production of any slide show program. The downside of this is that the computer needs a good graphics card, preferably a gaming card to handle the program demands. The GPU in the Lenovo machines appears to be either an ATI X1300 or possibly an X1500, not really adequate for PTE's demands. Note that Steve says the shimmering effect is not present when running a ProShow show. This is a significant piece of information, because ProShow does not use hardware rendering; it uses the CPU, and if it cannot keep up with program demands, the image and sometimes the sound will stutter. The fact that PSG does not show the shimmering problem, to my mind (as an electronics technician) seems to indicate that RF standing waves, EMR etc. is not the problem, which leaves the GPU as the most likely culprit. Brian Conflow has proposed that unusual weather conditions could have produced the effect actually on the original camera image. I do not believe this can be so, since Steve stated that running the PTE show on another computer gave a clean result with no 'shimmering'. If the fault was with the image it would show on all machines used to run the program. I believe Steve's best bet is find out whether the Lenovo will accept a better graphics card, preferably an Nvidia since they do not have the profile problem that dogs ATI cards; an Nvidia GeForce 7600 or 8600 or even better. If that course of action proves to be not possible, his only remaining choice is another machine, of the gaming type, not a business type. Colin. PS: There is an outside chance that the GPU in his computer is actually faulty, which gives an additional reason to try a card change.

Benchmark program run on a Dell 1520 laptop, Intel Duo 1.8 GHz, 3 GB ram, Nvidia GeForce 8600M GT and XP SP2 took 1m:13s. Time-adjusted for a faster processor at 2.66 GHz (1m 13 s *1.8/2.66) yields 49.4 seconds, which suggests that the speed is CPU-dependent. I guess the 3.4 seconds difference with Igor's figure is due to either the 64-bit XP or maybe this 8600 M GT chip being the mobile version.

Steve, On re-reading your original post, the bold line above appears significant. If the effect appears only when transitioning between slides, and not while a slide is stationary, then I think that rules out any problems with standing waves or reflections from mis-terminated ports, which would be continuous. The usual effect seen from standing waves from mis- or un-terminated ports/lines is ghosting, a secondary image some distance to the right of the main image. That distance is a function of the reflected path length, and in your laptop the path lengths are so short that a ghost would be invisible; also, the inteference does not look like a ghost, and it is occurring at the frame rate, not the line rate. Additionally, if the effect was due to RF problems, it would be program-independent, in other words it would also show in PSG, or indeed any graphic content on the screen, and not just while transitioning. I am still of the mind that the GPU being used by PTE for hardware rendering is the root cause of your problem, and the answer will turn out to be either another graphics card if possible, or worst case another computer, unless you elect to stay with PSG. Good luck, Colin

Steve, I imported your image into Photoshop and increased the contrast and saturation to show more clearly the effect you have on your image. From looking at the result, I am certain that it is your graphics card that is the problem, perhaps because PTE is using the graphics processor to do the work of rendering the image, whereas PSG does not use the graphics chip in that manner. I don't know if the IBM has a separate graphics card or not. If not, I fear you are stuck with the problem. If it can be changed, you might be lucky enough to get an Nvidia card to fit, ideally a GeForce 8600m GT or similar. Otherwise, I think you might need another machine

Mr Richards, I was disturbed to read your attack on Lin Evans, one of the most knowledgeable experts on this forum. You, in your very first post after being a member of this group for just one day, a self-acknowledged "not even amateur level" in photography and slide show making, had the temerity to attack Lin without knowing anything of his background and expertise in the subject, using language like 'crackpot' and 'liar', and calling into question his (accurate) description of the difference between PTE and PSG - all couched in weasel words and mock concern and righteous-sounding apologies. For myself, if you post again on this forum it had better be an apology to Lin for your incredible gaffe. Colin

Depending on the speed of your computer and the size of the DVD file, it is common for the program to appear to hang at the 99% mark. Usually it isn't really hung, just be patient and let it sit, and it will eventually finish by itself. It can take quite a while, and like the watched pot that never boils, sitting watching the screen will make it seem longer than it is. Colin

What Igor found appears to be another false positive, not an actual virus. Speaking for myself, I am certainly not complacent about viruses, trojans, adware, spyware, rootkits, keyloggers, or or other nasties. My primary protection is ZoneAlarm Pro Security Suite (ZA), for five major reasons. One; it checks all programs while they are being installed, and will flag any suspicious activity. Two; all programs attempting to access the trusted zone or the internet are checked against a list of permitted programs, and I have control over permissions. Even an upgrade to a permitted program, e.g. Firefox, will be caught. ZA puts up an alert that says 'This program has changed since it last ran'. I can then allow it to run once, or allow it to run permanently until I revoke permission. Three; I can put sensitive data like passwords, bank numbers, etc into the 'vault' for safe keeping. If any program tries to send anything that's in the vault, ZA will catch it and ask permission before sending. Four; ZA's anti-virus and anti-spyware module is slow and thorough, and I have it scheduled to run weekly. Five, ZA 'stealths' the computer, rendering the machine invisible to the internet, so that web crawling nasties do not detect its presence. For more on stealthing, see: https://www.grc.com/x/ne.dll?bh0bkyd2 This is Steve Gibson's 'ShieldsUP' site. If you haven't seen this before, prepare to be astonished. In addition I regularly run Search&Destroy and Ad-Aware over the entire machine. I do not use Norton, McAfee, or other 'real-time' AV programs. Most of those cause an unacceptable slowing of the computer while they do their checking. A seldom-realized problem with this type of program is the conflicting requirements of adequate checking for literally thousands of nasties without slowing the computer's response to unacceptable levels. The short-cuts and compromises required to do this guarantees false positives from time to time, when legitimate files contain byte strings that look like a virus, but which aren't. This accounts for why one AV program will flag a file as a virus while others do not. The somewhat sinister corollary to false positives is that less than thorough checking might let through an unrecognized virus or trojan, particularly with the newer mutating virii. It is also worth mentioning that the earlier 'payload' carried by virii was simply malicious destruction of files or corruption of programs on the infected machine, done for laughs, basically. The goalposts have shifted, and now the aim is to steal your personal details, keylogging your ID and passwords, or setting up your computer as a zombie to be used in DDOS attacks or other heinous activities that the average computer user never suspects. This is why ZA style monitoring of what's going out is essential. Apologies for the off-topic post. Colin

Are you wanting to produce copies of the CD yourself, or do you want to contract somebody to do it for you? Either way you will be making burnt CDs. Depending on the number you wish to produce, there are firms that will press commercial style CD's, but the price may be too much for you. Tell us some more about numbers etc. Colin

I second that. I use Zonealarm Pro, latest version, and ran a full scan of my machine, which takes about 2 hours. I have downloaded 5.1, and several programs from beechbrook, and the scan picked up nothing, except for that pesky 2o7 tracking cookie. For good measure I also ran Search & Destroy and AdAware Personal, both of which came up clean. Given the number (thousands!) of viruses out there, it's not surprising that the odd false positive crops up. The trick is to determine whether it is really reporting a genuine virus, or whether it's a false positive. AFAIK the best method of doing that is to try three or four virus checkers - not all at once - and get a consensus. Colin

You are rather jumping to conclusions with your post. It's a known fact that one or two anti-virus programs are detecting false positives, and there are a considerable number of posts here about this. Read the forum before getting 'mad'. Colin

A quick workaround would be to convert the image back to RGB after you have grey-scaled it. Colin

Go to this website: http://visualroute.visualware.com/ and download the lite version of this program. It's free for non-commercial use. Run the installed program, and type in the url of the site you are having trouble with. The program will show graphically the hops required to reach the target site, and the delay in milliseconds for each hop. It will give you some insight into where your problems are coming from. Colin

Start the show with a black slide timed to suit. Then the first image will emerge from black at whatever delay you want. Colin.

You could try Google Earth, which starts off with a complete globe rotatable by grabbing with the mouse. A series of screen dumps at suitable rotation increments should do it. It'll be somewhat time-consuming though. Colin

Hi Jeff, This show has a mystical quality, almost surreal, more than just the images. To both my wife and me, it seemed more of an experience than a show, and the 15 minutes went by completely unnoticed. I have always held the view that when image(s) literally reach out from the medium, so that whether paintings, photographs, or slide shows, the medium is forgotten, and one is conscious only of the images and music enveloping and entrancing the mind, then you have art. Your shows have art. Congratulations, Colin