dpeterso

Eric – If I understand your position correctly on the wide-screen format trend, you suggest that it’s a marketing conspiracy. Some of that may be true; most marketing schemes are designed get the consumer to buy something new. However, the shift in viewing formats is a wonderful improvement in my estimation because of how I perceive the world. It also sounds like you are determined to stay in a “squarish” world, at least for now, because that is what your current equipment supports and works fine with the local groups you deal with. You only encountered some suggestions to move to a wide format when presenting your work to a larger audience. As long as you keep your original pictures, you can always go back later and make changes. I process all of my images in Photoshop, so I know first-hand that it’s a major deal to go back and reformat the shows for a wide-format world. As long as you are aware that you may someday go down that path, then I understand why you don’t want to change now. Lastly, I’m confused by the fact that you already have a HDTV. Do you realize that you are only a new computer with an HDMI video card away from seeing your images on your TV? When that day happens, you don’t want to be square. Take care Eric, Dave

Hello Eric - Regarding what is more natural and pleasing to the eye, you have to wonder why the industry of televisions and computer monitors are going to wide-screen formats. Movie theaters have long used wide-screens and that was part of the awe of going to the movies.(Also, the popcorn and Milk Duds.) Today you see wide-screen formats in almost all new laptops, televisions, and computer monitors. The move to wide-screen format is in full swing. If you think about the human field of view, we have much greater peripheral view on the horizontal axis than on the vertical axis. In my opinion, it's a more natural way to take in an image. Just my thoughts. Dave

Rick - I may get all tangled up in the web of limited understanding regarding resolution, but it seems to me that you would want to size your pictures with what you'll be viewing them with, now and in the future. Personally, I've started sizing my images at 1920 x 1080 because that is the format of HDTV. Computer monitors are migrating to that format also. So it doesn't make sense to my limited understanding why you'd want to use 2560 X 1600. The only reason I can see to go larger is if you plan on doing panning and zooming in. If you do that, then it's best to start with a larger image to avoid seeing pixelation. Also keep in mind that if you start big, then PTE will downsize for smaller viewing devices. The 72 pixels/in you refer to ("Resolution of the Document Size") doesn't enter into the equation. It's relevant only if you are printing the image. Hope this helps. Have a good trip. Dave

Malcolm – This being your first A/V, I must say you are off to a fast start. Overall, I’d rate it as very, very good. You must be a student of Barry’s DVD tutorials because you have a lot of nice techniques in the show. I look at the shows of first-timers today and compare them to my first shows; well, it’s obvious that the learning bar has risen. Now, on to a few critique items: The opening was good and the music fitting with the scenes. I really liked the font selections. I normally don’t like insets because they interrupt the flow, but as someone recently pointed out to me, it’s a good way to handle verticals in a predominately horizontal show. Regarding panning and zooming, I’d minimize them. However, you have two examples of where the pan worked: at the beginning showing the gate, and later on when you panned up and to the right on the statue. I’d slow both of them down just a bit and give them a little more time. The rest of the pans and zooms didn’t add information to the scene, and thus seemed unnecessary. I would also try to stay with the same type of transition throughout the show, although the “turning/opening” page at the beginning seeming fitting. The pictures were very good Malcolm. It seems to be a truism that those who invest in high-end DSLRs, such as the Nikon D700, generally already have a good photographic eye, and know how to shoot. You’ve aptly demonstrated that correlation. Lastly, and this is really my issue and not yours, I wish that I could have seen it in a wide-screen format (16:9). The format looks overly square on a wide-screen monitor. It would have really added to my viewing experience. Thanks for sharing your English garden with a US Midwesterner. You are to be commended. Regards, Dave

Rick, After reading the suggestions of others, I have an addendum to what I said earlier. I agree with Barry that it would have been really special to have the resolutions set for larger wide-screen formats. PTE will scale it down for those viewing on smaller monitors. The pictures are too good to have to squint to see them. (Exaggeration) Also, if you do remove a few of the pictures, then that creates gaps regarding the soundtrack. You could fill the time gaps with either a voice-over explaining a little about what we are seeing, or even use some scrolling text to set the stage. Things like: where you were, how long, equipment used, etc. Have a good Labor Day. Dave

Rick – First of all, welcome. I must say that your first show is spectacular. The music is fitting and beautiful. And the great photographs carry the show. You apparently are no stranger to shooting wildlife. Here are a few things that I think would possibly enhance what is already a great show. The beginning slide is very dramatic and could possibly be used again as your closing slide before the music credits. I thought the title on the opening slide was rushed. It needs to move slower in concert with the music. I found the little inserts of pictures disruptive. Believe me, the pictures by themselves will carry the show. Also, I would not use the pans because they add nothing to what’s being communicated. In one case, the pan was too fast and short. So, I’d just leave them out. It may have helped to mix up the wildlife shots a bit more. Frankly, I watched it part way through once and then exited out because I was getting tired of seeing just elephants. Then I read Morturn’s response and decided to give it another try. I’m sure glad I did because you have some really great shots further into the show. I also appreciate your providing the music credits in detail. Out of Africa is one of my favorite movies. I’m curious about your post processing. In the image of the wildebeest jumping into the river, the background looks like a Gaussian blur has been applied, making part of the image look like a painting. I also saw some odd looking blurs in the image of the pile of ivory tusks, especially in the people standing near by. It’s not that this treatment doesn’t look nice; it’s just that it looks unusual. All in all Rick, a great show, and a great first-show. I hope you accept my suggestions as my own, and not that you need to change anything. I’ just want to be helpful if I can. Best regards, Dave

Barry - While you're in the testing mood, can you see a difference on your 60" plasma of a show made up of images saved at # 12 compression in Photoshop and the # 6 compression shows you have been doing? This is the question I can't answer without a HDTV. Thanks, Dave

Thank you Ken and Peter for clarifying why it looked like my experiment was invalid. I did in fact use the same image 50 times in the experiment. Dave

I tried to run another experiment to validate my findings as stated above. Unfortunately, something is wrong, somewhere. When I used 13 different pictures, sized at 1920 x 1080, one set saved at a quality level of 5 and the other set at a 12, and then created two shows (without music),the show using the 5s came out at 2.17MB. The show using the 12s came out at 17.4MB. Intuitively, this seems to make more sense than what I stated above. Thus, the jury is still out on what quality level to save at in preparation for a HDTV. Dave

Eric, Please read my post in response to Barry. The math extrapolations you used are the same that I used until I disproved our assumptions. Dave

Good input Barry - I did some further testing to assess the impact on a slideshow’s size when using JPEGS saved at “5” (medium quality) as opposed to a “12” (maximum quality). The original image was shot with a 10-megapixel camera (3888 x 2592), and comes out as a 2258 KB JPEG. I cropped this 2258 KB image to 1920 x 1080 and saved with the following quality levels: 5 (medium quality) = 105 KB image 12 (maximum quality = 1223 KB image I then created four slideshows, two with music (4988 KB MP3 song), and two without music. All four slideshows had the image copied 50 times using a 7 second time with a 3 second fade in/out transition. In other words, I created four 7 x 50 = 350 minute slideshows. Here are the slideshow sizes: 50 slides saved at “5” with 4988 KB music = 5374 KB 50 slides saved at “5” without music = 386 KB 50 slides saved at “12” with 4988 KB music = 6493 KB 50 slides saved at “12” without music = 1504 KB These findings really surprised me. Here are my observations: The music, not the slides are what make the slideshows so large. The music had no bearing on the size of the show other than its own 4988 KB size. I have no idea how one can put 50 slides, each at 105 KB in size into a slideshow and come up with a show (without music) at 386 KB. (I would have thought it would be 50 x 105 = 5250 KB). It must be some of that PTE magic! This experiment doesn’t address the image quality issues however. I don’t have an HDTV, so I can’t experiment and see for myself. However, noticing a difference in image quality between a 5 and a 12, tells me that when one blows it up further, like on a 60” HDTV, the proof will be self-evident. I’m going to begin saving at image quality level of 12. Dave

Eric, you read my mind. I did some experimenting with "Quality of Image" setting in Photoshop. Here is what I learned: Camera is a Canon 40D, 3888 x 2572 resolution set on "FINE". I took a picture into Photoshop and cropped to 1920 x 1080 Saved at a 5 = 94 KB size Saved at an 8 = 174 KB size Saved at a 12 = 921 KB size I can see the difference in the quality (sharpness) between a 5 and the 8 and 12, even viewing at "Actual Pixels" at 100%, It really shows up at 200%. This tells me that what Ken said rings true, that the higher quality setting really shows up on a HDTV. Now to Eric's concern. Size. If I have a 75 slide slideshow with pictures set at a 5 (94KB each), then if I take the same show with pictures saved at a 12 (921 KB each), doesn't this mean a 979% increase in size? (With all other things in the show being proportional) It has me wondering, and learning too. Dave

Today I have put a demo slide show together with images directly from my camera. I have just taken a slight crop from the top/bottom to retain a 16:10 format to fill my PC screen. The images sizes used in this demo are from a 22 million pixel Digital SLR and the images I used are 6144* 2840 pixels.

Eric - I read this a little closer the second time. Perhaps there something going on that I don't understand. It seems to me that you don't need to create a second exe file with the constraint box ticked. All you need to do is check the box to prevent upscaling of your 1024 x 768 images. PTE will handle the details. Dave

Eric - I understand why you are sizing your pictures at 1024 x 768. Checking the box to prevent "upscaling" does not denigrate your viewing experience, but it will greatly improve the experience of those viewing with larger screens. I would much prefer a black box (frame) that pixelated, fuzzy images. I can easily scoot my chair a little closer to the screen, but I can do nothing to clear up a fuzzy picture. Best regards, Dave

Eric - In version 5.6, here is what the users guide says: Fixed size of slide (in pixels) is the option, which doesn't allow the picture to change in size if the screen is larger than the picture itself. In this case, the black lines which color you may change, appear. If the option is unchecked, the picture can be zoomed. The next option Caption of show works only for the Windowed Mode. If you have chosen Fullscreen mode, then this option is of no use to you. Hardware acceleration option should be generally checked, if you create the show with animations. It gives you an opportunity to watch your slide show with a better quality. This checkbox can be found under Project Options/Screen Dave

Eric - Once I could see via your sub title that the images were 1024 x 768, it explained why the images looked fuzzy when showing on a 1920 x 1080 monitor, The vertical (768) is stretched all the way from top to bottom of my screen. I'm presumimng you forgot to check the box. I'm using PTE 5.1 and frankly, I don't know where the checkbox is that prevents upward scaling. I've never had the issue brought to my attention, although maybe it's because I usually saved my images at 1280 x 853, and more recently at 1920 x 1080. Maybe other can chime in here and report what they are seeing, and where specifically the little checkbox is. Regards, Dave

Nicely done Paul. You must photograph weddings professionally because all of the elements seem to be there. The pictures are very good, and I even liked the music. Looks like a big happy family and a beautiful wedding. Thanks for sharing with us. Dave

Barry, You do such nice work -- very professional. It's great to see good shows on a big screen too, so I appreciate you giving us lots of pixels. I liked the "no particular theme" approach for a change. I felt like I was down under just looking around, doing a little exploring. It must be very exciting living and exploring in a new place. Also, I liked the fonts used in the title pictures. Where do you get them? Are they available commercially through you? Just wanted to let you know that your work continues to inspire me. Regards, Dave

Thank you Andrew, Ken and Morturn for your input. Regaring the time allowed to read text, I've been coached on this before, but apparently I needed to allow more time. Good feedback. I think someone gave me a "rule of thumb" for timing of text on a previous show I posted. I'll have to look it up and pay closer attention next time. Again, thanks for responding. Dave

Here is a link to a slideshow covering a recent trip into Nebraska and South Dakota. Just as in past shows, this one was made to document my travels, so there is some personal stuff that you can fast forward through if you wish. However, I thought those of you from other continents would be interested in scenery from the Midwest of America. Comments and critique are appreciated. Regards, Dave http://www.epetersons.com/slideshows/?action=download&file=The%20Road%20to%20INYAN%20KARA%20%28HD%29.exe

Hello Maureen - Another really nice show from you. The pictures were very good and the music worked well for me. Having just started using a 1920 x 1080 (23") monitor, I was sorry that the pictures were not larger. I had to chuckle though because it reminded me of an old Indian saying: "White man build big fire, and stand back. Indian build little fire, and stand near." I moved closer to the fire and enjoyed your show just as well. Keep shooting and sharing. Regards, Dave

That was a different kind of show for sure. Very nice -- I really enjoyed it. Dave

Hum??? I can see that my hyper link isn't very hyper Can someone help me with this? Thanks Dave

Hello All – I’m trying several things with this slideshow. It’s made up of pictures I took on my way to and from the Grand Canyon this past May. It certainly has its share of “not-so-great” photographs. My intent was to just document the trip rather than win a calendar contest. This is the first show that I’ve posted on the forum that is sized at 1920 x 1080. I also experimented with a different kind of opening, just to get away from the routine. I’m also using a hyperlinked set of words to take you to the download screen. Ever since the last discussions about Maureen’s choice of music, I’ve tried to relax my cultural biases just a bit. This slideshow has a different kind of potential problem with the music. I’ll call it the “genre shift”. The music shifts because I went from a traveling mode to a scenery mode. Members within my family were quick to point it out to me. I didn’t change anything though because I liked both types of music. Here’s the link to the slideshow: View from the Road http://www.epetersons.com/slideshows/?acti...%20%28HD%29.exe Hope you enjoy the show. Comments are appreciated. Regards, Dave