phirchrds

Greetings Mr. Evans It is not my intention to engage in a tit for tat exchange of words. You did not provide the clarification I desired and that is disappointing. Like others here I valued your advise as posted here and elsewhere. It is in part your claim to be a beta tester for both Pictures2Exe and Pro Show Gold in other places you have written that led me to respect your knowledge which is why I brought up this subject when I contacted Pro Show. I was shocked by Mr Schmit's response and perhaps acted rashly. While I will not apologize for things I have not said I do regret that my first appearance here was not more tactful. You still have not clarified what you meant by the following paragraph - 'With ProShow Gold and other presentation slideshow software, because they were originally oriented toward the end product being DVD (low resolution NTSC or PAL), the original image is resampled down to about 800x600 pixels which is still a bit higher than DVD resolution, then the software rendering creates the intermediary steps (multiple images) and only about 30 frames per second maximum. This is all that is required to produce optimal DVD at NTSC or PAL resolutions. When you ask ProShow or other non PTE products which create executable slideshows to make a slideshow at say 1200x1600 resolution, they then resample these previously downsampled images back to 1200x1600 resolution for the executable file. This has the unavoidable consequence of much lower image quality than PTE which only downsamples the original to create a DVD, MPEG II or AVI file. This is why image quality is much better with PTE than with competing products.' It is in this paragraph that you made claim Pro Show was incapable of renderings above 30 frames per second, was it not? This paragraph does indicate a claim that Pro Show is incapable of renderings totaling beyond 800 by 600? Perhaps this is a misreading on my part of your original statement hence my request for further clarification. It seems that you are avoiding a direct answer here. And it is my belief one will never be forthcoming. As my reception here has been less then warm, perhaps rightfully so, I will now withdraw from this discussion and will not return unless you agree to answer these claims straightforwardly. In closing I am not sure who to believe in this matter which is my primary motivation for my presence here. Whether you believe this or not is none of my concern. I do not wish to throw tarnish on anyone's holiday so will leave things as they are and bid everyone in this discussion group farewell. Sincerely, Philip Richards

Greetings Mr Evans My name is Phil and I am an aspiring photographer not quite good enough to even refer to myself as an amateur. I have recently had a lot of free time on my hands and have been testing the various attributes of photographic software. After trying several such softwares such as Microsoft's Photostory 3 and Nero I had discovered the wonderful Pictures2Exe program in an amateur photography discussion. I was amazed at the crisp and clear quality of image representation but found many drawbacks chief amongst them being the inability for the addition of video clips. It is for this reason I began studying other options outside from Pictures2Exe and the closest I was able to find was Pro Show Gold. Although Pro Show did not quite have the same quality of image there were many other factors that made it a worthy addition to my software library. Making careful comparisons I ultimately decided, in part based on information found in this very discussion group, that Pictures2Exe was the utmost in software for making AV presentations for running on the computer. However I found Pro Show to be more suitable for making DVDs as well as High Defintion video files and Flash video. Still I prefer Pictures2Exe so it is with deep regret that my first post to be made to this group might be perceived with negativity. This is not my intention but rather is an attempt to prevent the esteemed reputation of Pictures2Exe from being sullied by untruths and misinformation. In this case I am referring to the post you made Mr Evans concerning Pro Show's ability to process High Definition video. In particular you made claims that Pro Show could not create video output more than 30 frames per second. It is my understanding that video cannot be referred to as High Definition unless it is at 60 frames per second. This finding also proved absolutely false in my own tests so I thought I would write to Pro Show themselves to set the record straight. I was quite surprised to not only get an answer back almost immediately but to get an answer back from the president of the company himself, Mr. Paul Schmit. This gentleman told me that not only does Pro Show create video with a 60 per second frame rate that even shows running on a PC produce a much higher frame rate than 30 frames per second. This gentleman also told me that it was quite possible to render image in Pro Show at much higher rates than the 800 by 600 you quoted and is in fact capable of rendering at whatever resolution the image originally exists in. Mr. Schmit did indeed say there would be a slower performance in this case which strengthened my belief that Pictures2Exe is the best for performance versus quality of image. Mr. Schmit's failure to say anything negative regarding Pictures2Exe also showed just how reputable the software is. However it also strengthened my belief that for video rendering Pro Show is similarly unmatched. What is more upsetting is Mr Schmit's following claim - 'Although I am unsure whether or not Mr. Lin Evans is a crackpot or a liar, I am sure he is one or the other (or perhaps both.) At the very least, he is uneducated about these topics he claims to have experience with. He probably just made some bad assumptions and hasn’t bothered to check to see if he’s right or not. This is quite a sad behavior for one who purports to guide others. His claims are dangerous in a competing product’s forum and may border on libel. Mr. Evans was not and is not a beta tester for Photodex and I would hope that any beta tester of ours would be smart enough to not make obviously flawed claims in the face of logic. Mr. Evans’ assertions are easily proven false. If he were a beta tester, this would have immediately gotten him removed from the group permanently.' I am not about to accuse anyone of deliberated being untruthful however it is my belief that this type of misinformation is wholly inappropriate. I am not above recommending Pictures2Exe to others with an interest in photography but I hesitate to do so if it gets me branded as being untrustworthy. Mr Evans, I ask you to clarify your statements and present the information you are basing these claims on. Pictures2Exe is top notch software worthy of a worldwide reputation for professionalism. I do not think these types of mistruthful distortions are necessary or called for. Mr. Schmit was kind enough to offer to discuss the matter with you personally you need only pm me for his email address. I realize I am unleashing a hornet's nest here and I hesitated as to whether I should say anything at all. However my experience with Pictures2Exe has brought so much delight that I don't believe I can sit back and allow your post to go untouched. Please take my words as a courtesy to prevent further rancor from those that are not as sympathetic as I am towards this great software. I only with for the truth to be heard so Pictures2Exe can achieve the glory it deserves. Sincerely Phillip 'Phil' Richards