Barry Beckham

Mick Do you have a reason for retaining the 3:2 aspect ratio you get from your camera. The reason I ask is that your question may be a little easier to understand if you standardized your slide shows on your screen aspect ratio/TV etc . I will assume that is 1920*1080 - 16:9 aspect ratio. I am pretty good at using all the space I have in my own images, yet the vast majority of what I shoot does fit comfortably into the 16:9 aspect ratio. They crop pretty well, most of the time, certainly 95% of the time. Think of the virtual size of the slide label differently. Convert it in your head to say. What aspect Ratio and pixel size do I want my slide show to be? By adjusting this pixels in those two boxes, you determine an aspect ratio too. So if you add 1920*1080 into those two fields and then look at Project Options > Main tab. You will see the aspect ratio of 16:9 is created from the pixel value you entered in virtual size of slide. So, it's simply the size of the slide show that you want to make in pixels. If this doesn't complicate things more. Suppose you had a need for a square slide show. You could enter 1080*1080 into the virtual size of slide, because that would be telling the software what the pixel size of your slide show is and at the same time setting the square aspect ratio/format. Not sure if this helps or hinders ,

Your welcome ????

Try holding the shift key then click and drag. That is a shortcut in Photoshop, but it will probably work in Elements

Congratulations, will you be posting it on Slide Show club?

When a new idea is suggested, there is often a series of replies offering workarounds and I have often wondered how Igor gets through all that nonsense to the idea itself. Shouldn't an Ideas Section be just that. One post, with no replies with workarounds or a lengthy discussion about who thinks its a good idea or bad idea. Those discussions can be had in the general section. Perhaps it would be easier for Igor to select the ideas that have merit from those that don't if they were better isolated. Personally I don't require wnsoft to give me any feedback as I am quite happy to make a suggestion and live by what wnsoft decide. I don't feel the need to lobby him for change. I certainly don't think anything will be gained by Igor having to explain why ideas cannot or will not be implemented. Lets have a little confidence and give Igor our ideas and live with his judgement.

Provocative? Why, because I said progress changes things? Surely I need to be a bit more radical than that to be provocative. However, I wasn't, but progress is such that we have to move on and perhaps the time is right to simplify AV as much as possible. Its not as though we are fighting new users off is it. That's right, but surely my opinion is as valid as any one else's? I don't recall saying it wasn't. I am just happy for Igor to make his decision. If the fixed size of slide remains, OK. If it doesn't then I'll manage and I am sure everyone else will too. I did see that you put Mk4 rather then three and assumed it was a typo. I must put my order in quick for the new Canon, because without fixed size of slide I will need all those pixels to zoom into the backside of the fly in my soup. Now I am being provocative

Whilst using higher resolution images in a higher resolution project is the obvious answer it will, for some - in theory, curtail the amount of zoom which can be applied to some images from older cameras. Well, there is a result for a start Some animation needs serious curtailing especially deep zooms. Not seen one example where the image has had the interest or the quality to hold my attention. A mediocre picture on screen far too long and zoomed into extremes just because they could. Not a great basis for creative AV or interesting viewing.

Yes I did hit the point and I understand the point. This forum does have a habit of stating the obvious. No, I would rather an old slide show is not upscaled, but things have to move on. The speed with which the digital world moves, I can see Igor's dilemma and if he tries to meet all the desires of this forum, the software would still be back at V4. If we have to forgo that feature, but get others in return, then what has to be has to be. We can't always have what we want and it is only Igor who knows what he can and can't achieve. Perhaps we are getting a wake up call here, start making your slide shows in readiness

Igor You're on a hiding to nothing here. Meaning, your never going to please all of the people all of the time. Just go with what you feel is right and in the words of a famous film. We may need Bigger images No problem with that, our PC's and PTE can handle them. It's progress.

Igor Just reading your comment for the second time and this thought came to me, which is probably a bit off the wall. When we do a file new, we select our potential output as well. If video is selected, this then closes off any options like passwords and manual control that would not be available in a video. However, it would need to be switchable at any stage for those who selected the wrong output or those who just change their minds

Lin Maybe you're beating this drum, just a little too loudly

Gary I know what you mean, there is a significant amount of Photographers who are only just coping with what they need for their basic photography. They see the making of slide shows as a step too far. The way I tried to break this down was to first do a short demo to members on how to make a slide show, but you have to forget about ANY fancy stuff like resizing images, adding animation or video. Just keep it simple and basic...and short. Some of the technically clever slide shows we see posted can actually have a detrimental effect when seen by some. They give newcomers the wrong idea, padding out their initial view that its all too much trouble. I then got the club to run a mini 10 competition and I created a disk with the trial version of PTE on it for members to try. It was back when you could make a slide show with 10 images and a logo appeared down the bottom of the screen which we had to live with. It was well supported and from there I have helped those members who showed interest. So, as you say, you can lead a horse to water, but it's not enough sometimes. This is the first time our club got involved in such a large competition and I receive a fair number of calls and emails from entrants and potential entrants. The two questions that stick out in my mind was the first one from Mac users asking advice on what software they should use. So, maybe a Mac version of PTE will do more for sales than the PC/Mac percentages would indicate. The second issue was over resolution and Aspect ratio. We left that in the rules as a creative choice of the entrant and it's clear some were confused. They were so used to their club laying down draconian rules on image size that a set of rules that left it them, had one or two a little baffled. We can tidy that up next year. I think the best promotion for AV it to demonstrate putting together a simple collection of images as a portfolio. Maybe an end of year, best images I shot this year type of thing. Those with the interest will continue, those who don't will let it drop. We also have to accept that PSG got a toe hold into the amateur scene and then members will take advice from others and follow suite. When software is recommended, it's rarely done from a position of real knowledge. How many have enough experience of different software to be able to make that judgement. Its just a case of do what I do.

Just some feedback on this competition following the presentation night on Saturday 6th September. The competition was limited to clubs in the Metropolitan area of Brisbane, 19 possible clubs, but members from only about 8 entered. 42 entries were received and 34 were made with PTE, the remaining ones were Mp4 or DVD's, no PSG entries at all. From the calls I had over the months, I guess many of the remaining 8 entries were from Mac users. The fact that only 8 clubs entered from a possible 19 was a little disappointing. There is little doubt that unless a club has at least one or two AV enthusiasts in their midst to drive this sort of thing along, photographers do seem reluctant to have a go. This is despite a category we added called Min10 (10 images only) to encourage entries. I did make a short promo for the competition and a copy was sent to each club, so every effort was made to encourage entries. Having said all this, 42 was far more than last year and I expect next year will be greater still, it is growing year on year. One of the biggest failings was exe file size with one 4.20 sequence coming in at 700MB, another around the same length at 500MB and a number of others far bigger than they needed to be. No great problem in this situation, but next year we would want to use a file drop for entries and then it might cause some issues. It did cause some issues getting all the sequences onto a disk. We needed two disks, when they should have all been easily fitted on one. The winners stood out head and shoulders above the rest, no surprise there really as this gap can be seen quite in AV circles. We still have work to do to promote PTE, but Its the basics that are required. Many amateurs still have the view that dabbling in AV is just a step too far. Other information worth mentioning:- In the 42 sequences shown, no video was used at all and animation was also very limited and where it was used, it seemed to be used wisely. It also seemed clear from the audience reaction that had the results been judged from audience reaction on the night, the results would have been a lot different. Given that we make AV's to be seen by a wider audience, I wonder if that is the way to judge them in future.

Judy Thank you, I always try and some say I am very trying I am back in the UK on the 11th September for a visit, I was hoping members would all be queuing up to buy me a beer

Igor Can you arrange it so that PicturesToExe can make me a nice Espresso coffee while I am making my slide shows please and a digestive biscuit on the side may be nice

Igor Would that mean that the player would be included with the data only files as a part of the publish option? and/or Would the player be a download and install separately?

Our September Newsletter is available HERE

Really ?

You need to scan from the right side of the glass, the side with the emulsion on it, or the thickness of the glass slides may be causing the blur.

hidden surface removal I don't know what this means, can you expand on the details a little please.

That is impressive and if you knew you had to use it, presumably you would not fill the frame quite so much to allow for the cropping

Our August Newsletter has been published HERE

Peter Sometimes life can be too short to search too much for these unexplained errors. They just happen from time to time. I stitch hundreds of videos together, but sometime I get one that looks like an Mp4, acts like and Mp4, but refuses to play. Stitch it together again after a reboot and all is OK. Eric it's just a case of advancing with the times That's just a little rich coming from you mate. Is this the same Eric who called me a twerp for suggesting he try PTE 8

A corrupt image in some way? but I sort of expect your ahead of that idea and have already tried swapping the troublesome image for another already. Being a logical person as you are