FlightDeck

(For some reason the forum's Quote function is not working today...) Lin, thank-you for the time you took to reply. It seems we're not working together. You've explained you think WnSoft should not try any experiments as possible help for some of its PTE users, and gave many analogies of why. Since you've said you're not part of the development team, I don't understand why you would take such a firm non-neutral position, especially as a Moderator, against what they might try to help some other customers. Please correct me if I am mis-reading this. In any case, I'm not seeking a who-to-blame debate between software and hardware---it's an incompatibility between the two. I am only trying to help generate ideas and give specific technical suggestions that might help, regardless of whether it's for the software, hardware, or both. Yes, trying a new projector is probably a perfect fix, but there are many who can't afford that option. Does that mean PTE should eat the expense instead with software changes? Of course not, I'm only suggesting there may be some relief on the software side that may not have been considered. As always, no guarantees it would work either, and ultimately it remains up to WnSoft to decided whether or not to pursue. For the users, you're correct, avoiding use of those effects may be all that can be done, in the absence of either a "more-compatible" projector or a software feature to mitigate the issue. As I mentioned earlier (you quoted it in your reply), I do not have ready access to a projector to do all these tests myself. I acknowledge the suggestions you've echoed, such as trying an AVI, etc., however I'm not in position to do these myself. This leaves me feeling like a severed arm, frustrated that I can't put much more into this than ideas, as I have no quick access to hardware to play with. Other users having the issues would have to try them and post the results, as suggested a few times. (With the lack of response so far, however, maybe it really is just one projector having problems ) Regarding AVI however, there were several replies, this thread included, that indicated "it doesn't/wouldn't work", though it wasn't clear to me if those were actual results, or conjecture. Wish I could try them myself to confirm either way. Unfortunately that discussion around AVI files wandered into a separate issue of making AVI look as good as HD TV and films, etc., which is an entirely different ball of wax... It strikes me that we're stuck. I can't make other users test the various suggestions such as reduced-frame-rate AVI files, or Igor's suggestions of DVI connections, reduced refresh rate, windowed mode, etc., nor can I make WnSoft try a software experiment. The ideas are out there, hopefully little by little users will find relief in some shape or form so we can all enjoy the great PZR features on projectors. Maybe new projectors will go on a big sale soon Back to the photography... Regards, KDJ

Brian, as mentioned in my previous post, I think we are getting well off the topic of this thread by discussing digital TV formats, etc., inside of sticking to the issues of compatibility of PTE slideshows from .EXE output to digital projectors. In any case, if you believe that there will be one single standard that will be applied to anything worldwide and be here to stay, I have a quote for you that I read once on a website: "I like standards. There are so many to choose from." Regards, KDJ

Xaver, I think it's not clear in the Canon SX-50 manual whether the frequencies are *required for the input*, or whether they are instead the frequencies of the projector's *output*. I am suspecting it is the latter, i.e., in a particular mode the project's output may be 60 Hz but this would not prevent giving the projector an input of 50 Hz. Regards, KDJ

Igor, I appreciate your reply and the time you took to respond. Regret we got to this point. As we had received no response/suggestions from WnSoft, none of these options were known to us. Also, as mentioned in the previous thread http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9354, I have requested other users to test DVI connections as I do not have access to a digital projector myself (I am trying to help some people who do have one). Unfortunately, no users have replied that they've tried a DVI conenction and the results. Until other users here begin posting the results of using a DVI connection, there is no feedback I can provide. Also note that the issue we're discussing is not limited to the Canon SX50, but affects multiple brands and models of digital projectors. Of course what helps one projector may also help for the others, but let's not lose sight that there is more than just the Canon SX50 showing these problems. Again, hopefully some other users can test this with their equipment and report the results so we can all see if it has a positive effect. And this may be true, 30 Hz may be no good for smooth animations. I'm only suggesting it is something to try to see the effect. At the very least, if it cures the issue of projector problems, then we should know for certain that frame rate incompatibility really is the problem. Also, I suggest if it's possible to try user-defined frame rates instead of a fixed value such as 30 Hz. It may be that only a very small reduction in frame rate is required, maybe only a few Hz. This would keep the frame rate high enough to maintain smooth animations, while avoiding the projector frame rate problems. Again, it's a trade-off / optimization between two bad effects. Will you be producing a special test version of PTE with a reduced frame rate to test this problem? Thanks and regards, KDJ

I took a break from this topic due to many frustrations with lack of headway and a premium on my time to support the effort to find mitigation. Having since seen the reply from Igor I've decided to add a few additional comments. Though I do understand what you mean, saying it has nothing to do with PTE is not entirely correct, to play devil's advocate. Before using a particular ouput device, one must always be sure that the input is appropriate for that device. Providing a device with an input it can't use and "blaming" the output device is not particularly responsible from an engineering point of view. With software we are always pushing the limits of output devices, because it's so easy to do so, and when the output device can't deliver, we blame the hardware. This is of course not unique to PTE software and has been endemic of the computer software-hardware divide for decades. Hardware blames the software, and vice versa. My point is that if there are options available on the software side that *may* better tailor its output to a particular output device, then it should be tried before blaming the hardware. Of course not all software companies do this all the time, owing to the shear number of software-hardware combinations and their related incompatibilities. Brian this wouldn't really matter. *How* the graphics are generated is immaterial once the signal is sent to the output device. SVG and other graphics techniques are on *software-side*, combined with related processing by the graphics cards. But once a particular frame of the display has been computed, regardless of how it was generated, it is formatted essentially as a static "bitmap" image for the output device. A monitor, projector, etc., simply receive this static data and display it according to their own designs. Now if you are instead referring to the high *frame rates* that are associated with these types of graphics, then yes, I agree, the manufacturers may not be committing that their projectors can reproduce those high frame rates without encountering problems. And I believe that is precisely the issue here, an incompatibility between the high frame rate generated by PTE and the inability of some projector models to receive frames at such high rates and project them appropriately. Thus my suggestion to WnSoft to test a reduction in frame rate as a trade-off between maximized animation smoothness and minimized unwanted artifacts due to projector limitations. Brian, I think you're on a separate topic. The discussion here concerns the issues of using PTE in what I call it's "native mode", running an .EXE file or PTE directly to display a slideshow on a digital projector. It is not about generating TV-compatible slideshows, or video file formats from PTE. Unfortunately from your post and subsequent ones from others in this thread, it appears the discussion has wandered into the topic of TV-compatible slideshows. When discussing the issues of using PTE in the native mode, i.e., running from an .EXE file, we must set aside any considerations of video formats, TV standards, etc., as they simply don't apply, and are only relevant in that they provide some insight into what the digital projector hardware may have been designed for, and thus possible limitations. I don't deny that there is useful info to be used in understanding the TV side of things, however I think we're getting all wrapped around the axle by focusing on it and confusing the issue. I also note that you are mixing up *analog* television standards such as NTSC and PAL with *digital* TV "standards" in the same discussion, which is causing further confusion. Regards, KDJ

Appreciated Colin. It...wasn't...easy {twitch, twitch} Let's just say it's a good thing my divine maker was wise enough to *not* supply me with a big red "Smite" button. Regards, KDJ

First, I need to clarify that I do not speak on behalf of the photography club I mentioned above---statements are my own. I was merely pointing out that my club has other PTE users in that real-life group who have been battling this issue for months. And being that the club is large, issues experienced by a few users can quickly become a concern for many. Lin Evans, Following your comments here: I will assume that you are not a representative of WnSoft and not replying upon their behalf. Owing to your apparent long-standing involvement with and loyalty to WnSoft, I can understand your comments. However as much I have admitted to and have apologized for upsetting others here, I propose that your comments above are similarly non-productive. (If I may particularly caution on the use of the word "threats", as there has been no such occurrence, and as I work in a security field, that is a "red-flag" word that should be handled with care.) My post was perhaps not clear, as I didn't describe myself as "highly credentialed"---I was referring to the other engineers with whom I consulted, and duly maintain that they are fully deserving of such accolades. Myself I limited to "experienced", which is factual and not egoistic. In any case, as you have some long-standing history, you may not readily appreciate the service issue I'm pointing out as a new customer. I am not trying to stir polemical debate nor insult WnSoft, employees, contributors, and users. I am identifying that as a customer of WnSoft, I have been contacting their tech support several times and receiving no reponse and also that other users have similarly been "ignored". While admittedly ill-considered, it seemed to me that after months of being ignored, perhaps pinging Mr. Kokarev through the forum here was the only last-ditch effort to get WnSoft to respond to these users. Upon re-reading the license agreement I note no mention of tech support, so perhaps I naively expected it was part of the package. In any case, I would think that WnSoft could at least acknowledge customers contacting it via tech support. In all fairness to myself and other users with frustration, I would offer for consideration that this should not be a prerequisite for a customer to receive a response from WnSoft tech support. Would you agree? Agreed. Would you like to let it settle there, and you and I focus now on the original technical topic itself? You comment: No, again, I have received *no* response from WnSoft. Or are you referring to a forum post from another user? You have to appreciate that as a customer I can not consider that as authoritative from WnSoft---though certainly I pay attention to those suggestions/opinions all the same. In any case, yes, as explained at length on the forum here http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....=100#entry63449, I fully appreciate there is a very real hardware component to the issue and, on that front, unfortunately, there is probably little we can do than wait for new hardware to materialize in the coming years that might fortuitously resolve it. I suggested, I didn't "assume". For convenience, here is the suggestion I originally posted {emphasis added}: "...make an alpha-test build with the option to manually set the maximum frame rate the software sends to the video driver. Users could then experiment with the setting to set the lowest fps that minimizes jitters/wipes, while remaining high enough to minimize video judder between frames." Note clearly that this is a "lesser of evils" optimization exercise, not a black-and-white "fix", and I can offer no guarantees it will bring relief. But the technical principles and potential pay-offs are certainly sound enough that it could be tried. I also consider that it may very well be totally incompatible with WnSoft's architecture, thus making the whole exercise a non-starter. But WnSoft should be able to readily comment on the feasibility aspect. Regarding AVI, it would have been great for WnSoft tech support to suggest using an AVI as a possible solution. However, in the absence of any response from WnSoft, it had been my understanding from other user testimonial (off-line) that the AVI has a lower image resolution than .EXE and is thus undesirable for image quality. Perhaps I misunderstood and/or this is not the case. Can you comment? Thanks and regards, KDJ

Perhaps I can offer some insight then that prompted my post, some of which you're already no doubt aware as you've been following the thread in question concerning projector issues. Users began reporting issues with *multiple makes and models* of projectors almost half a year ago, and reporting them in the forum. In addition, some users have directly contacted WnSoft tech support to report these problems, provide information they hope will help, and requesting some feedback on what they can do. They have not received any responses at all. Note that some of these users are part of the same 300-member club of amateur and professional photographers in my city. When I learned of the issues, being an experienced engineer and having access to a network of others with expertise in this field, I began doing some theorizing, designing some tests, etc., that could help zero in on the issue---is it hardware, software, combination, etc? The results of that are all posted in the other thread: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9354 As part of this, I came up with a potential software fix. No guarantee, but the possibility is there. I contacted WnSoft tech support directly with the detailed proposal for the possible solution, recommending that WnSoft try implementing it into an alpha-test version of PTE to see if it has the desired effect. Response? None. After a few weeks, I contacted again. Received a reply it would be forwarded to Igor. More time passes, no response. I contacted again, still no response. I'm certain you can appreciate that this complete lack of response from WnSoft to multiple users, without even an acknowledgment of "we're looking into it" would cause a fairly high level of frustration. And then, to see Igor Kokarev himself posting that he is updating images on the website instead of responding to users and working on solutions, well, with the sincerest of respect to Mr. Kokarev, he needs to appreciate how disrespectful that appears to his customers. Look, none of us in our club are expecting WnSoft to guarantee to fix the problem. It may be it can't be fixed at all on the software side, and that we need manufacturers to develop a new generation of projectors across the board to get better results. Not much we can do about that if true. The present issue here is that WnSoft has been completely non-responsive on the issue for months, even despite having received some very valuable technical recommendations from some highly credentialed engineers (for free I might add). All any of us are asking for is some kind of acknowledgement that the problem and ideas are being examined. I think that would be a great courtesy after the months that users have been waiting. And for myself, I was hoping for some direct dialogue towards implementing my technical recommendations into an alpha-test version of PTE to see if it presents some relief on the problem. You are correct in implying that I have little vested interest in the forum here. That is precisely why I stepped up to support my club mates to see if I could help identify the problem based on some engineering assessments, and help provide WnSoft some possible solutions. I also have little vested interest in the PTE product. I think it's a great tool, developed from what is obviously a very small shop (probably a one-man-show). However if it's not delivering on primary requirements such as working well on digital projectors, and there are *possible* software fixes that the company is unwilling to try or to even acknowledge user reports of problems, and instead chooses to prioritize cosmetic website updates, well, then that leaves little option but to find another company who may be willing to assess the ideas for their product. Apologies if I've irked the community dynamic here, but the users deserve some kind of response from WnSoft. Little more I can say really. I await with some hope the WnSoft will offer some acknowledgment of this issue, and perhaps even share some insight into plans to work on it. Thanks and regards, KDJ

Pardon me for being political, but I think there are many users who are more interested in seeing an update to PTE that addresses the pan/zoom issues with digital projectors (discussed here http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....showtopic=9354) than are interested in seeing some new photos on the website. Or at the very least a response from WnSoft that acknowledges the problem and indicates that something is being done about it, rather than being ignored. Does the v5.7 bring any fixes for this problem?? Thanks, KDJ

Okay it's been over 3 weeks since I posted this request for test results, and no replies yet. Has anyone tried the DVI connection? Does everyone know what I mean by a DVI connection? On the back of your computer's video card, it will be a rectangular connector with 3 rows of square pinholes. The DVI connection on your projector will look similar, if it has one (not all do). Your computer may have a DVI output connection, but may not have come with the DVI cable for it, so you would have to find/buy a cable to try it. As there is a possibility this connection type could fix the problems PTE has with panning, I hope someone can test this out asap and share the results. Thanks, KDJ

Hello Brian, Yes, I have read your posts some time ago, and they had some interestings ideas. You'll note some similarities with the explanations I posted recently. Regarding the article that you linked, I doubt that it is strongly relevant to the issue here. Frame interpolation would be used for low frame rate sources, such as 24 fps video, being played at high projector rates, such as 60 fps, an issue with newer high-def home theatre systems. The resulting playback can be juddery, so one possible solution is to create interpolated frames between the original frames, thereby smoothing the playback (with the unfortunate side effect of softening the image, losing some of the high-def advantage). However in our case, we have more than enough frame rate, at 60+ Hz from the video card. The problem is one of frame synchronization. The incoming frames are interrupting the frames that the projector is already processing. The frame buffer concept in your diagram could ideally help with this, as it could keep frames from overwriting. In any case, that is a hardware solution, and not likely to provide relief to us in the near future, and requires replacing all existing projectors. The software solution I proposed to WnSoft *may* provide an immediate benefit, by reducing the frame rate being suppled to the video card. The trade-off will be an increase in playback judder. This is where the frame interplotation you mentioned in the projector could help, as our video card output would then be similar to 24 fps video. But again, this requires new projector designs and replacement of existing projectors. Have you tried the DVI test I requested above? Does you video card and projector have DVI input/outputs to test this? I would like to see your results. Thanks, KDJ

Anyone got results yet for the DVI connection tests? KDJ

Just a follow-up for the DVI testing, JRR has mentioned that a show is already available for everyone to test, so that we have some consistency. It is available here: http://www.mediafire.com/?ymwmyurgvik Within the Zip file, please test with one of the following shows: projection test problems 1400x1050 version projection test problems 1024x768 version The first large pan of the mountain scene should readily indicate if there are any problems. Thanks, KDJ

Hello all, I'm just joining into the discussion, however I've already been involved "behind the scenes"---I've been helping JRR and Ed Overstreet, and helped uncover the Frame Lock feature on JRR's Panasonic projector which helped a lot in his case. We did another round of testing this week with Panasonic and Canon projectors, with no real improvement. (I believe Ed may be posting on the detailed results separately.) Following that I kept working some theories between myself and another engineer, and came up with three vectors on which to act. Cutting straight to the conclusion, they are: 1) (long-term) Hound projector manufacturers for "frame protection" capabilities and/or higher refresh rates. 2) (immediate) Test shows on computers with DVI output from the video card and DVI input to the projector. 3) (short/medium term) Get WnSoft to test a software mod that limits frame rate to a user-specified maximum. I'll leave it to the user world at large to press for #1. I'll be contacting WnSoft with specific recommendations related to #3, which hopefully they'll entertain. For #2, I request that users could post results of the following test. If you have a PC video card with digital output (DVI) and a projector with digital input (also DVI), please indicate whether using this connection reduces or solves the problems with panning. When posting your results, please specify the refresh rate setting on your PC's video card. If possible, perform the test at 2 different refresh rates: one at the lowest possible setting (probably 60 Hz on most systems), and one at the highest useable setting, if there is one. ~~ For those with the time/inclination to read long theories, posted below is the background logic that leads to the above 3 actions. In the absence of detailed information on the inner working of the projectors, I make can make no guarantees it is 100% correct, however I believe all the concepts are on the right track. Pieces of this are not new and have been discussed here and there throughout this thread and in other places---I am only trying to tie it all together into a theory and courses of action which make sense to me within my engineering knowledge. (The explanation below is at a high level with limited detail, for a broader audience. Underneath, however, I have a considerable amount of very technical details in the realms of analog and digital signal processing, digital sampling theory, video processing, etc.) Here's the theory... As I had proposed some time ago, I believe the issues are a frame-rate "incapability" between the video card in the computer and the projector. All of the symptoms I've heard of and witnessed point in this direction. All the projector specs I've reviewed indicate many have a frame rate of about 60 per second (60 Hz). Our TV signals (in North America) are 30 fps (interlaced), and movies (film) are 24 fps. This means the projector operates plenty fast enough to properly project these sources. Computer video cards, however, usually run no slower than 60 Hz, and often well higher. This means a video card can send new frames to the projector faster than it can project them. If the projector has no "frame protection" capability to ensure it completely projects one frame before starting the next one, then it will interrupt itself in mid-frame and start projecting the next one. If the input in question contains motion, such as a slideshow pan, then you will see a rip/waterfall/wipe going down the screen. While only noticeable during such motion, the reality is that it's always present, even on still images---you just can't see it because both the old and new frames are the same. My suspicion is that the Frame Lock feature on JRR's Panasonic is just such a "frame protection" capability. Problem is, it seems not all projectors have it. This is actually understandable given the main markets for projectors would be corporate presentations and tv/film. The former are generally static images and basic animations, where the users probably don't encounter the issue (or don't often enough to care). And the latter, as already mentioned, are at low enough frame rates to be within the projector's 60 Hz capabilities. So what's the fix, in the global sense? In theory the options are: 1) change projector design/capabilities 2) change PC video output design/capabilities 3) change slideshow software design/capabilities 1) If projectors are produced with a suitable "frame protection" feature, then all the problems should go away. This will obviously not come as a quick fix to those of us at the coal face. All we can do here is try-before-buy on new projectors, and hope they have the capability. And obviously, digital projectors that could get their butts well above 60 Hz would be a huge improvement for us all! 2) If we could force the PC video output down to, say 30 Hz, it should be within the projector's capabilities and *may* reduce the problems. But depending on whether 1) has been implemented, it may not *eliminate* the problems. This option is not likely to happen, as the general utility of a computer screens running at only 30 Hz is very poor. Alternatively, there is a possibility that some projectors will work perfectly fine if they are given digital input instead of analog. RGB, S-video, Component, Composite cables are all analog. The LCD projector is a digital device, and therefore must perform the analog-to-digital conversion itself. If the input were at a low frame rate, there would probably be time for the projector to receive each frame of input, perform A/D conversion, and then project it in time for it's 60 Hz refresh cycle. However if we send it 60 Hz analog from the computer, I suspect it's not getting enough time to process the input frame entirely before needing to project it. This might partly explain the jittery stuff at the top of the screen (frames draw top down). A *digital* input, however, might have better results. When the PC has a video card with a DVI output connected to a projector with a DVI input, then a digital signal is sent to the projector. No A/D conversion is needed by the projector. Since digital data arriving off the cable is processed very differently than analog, with a more precise/condensed clock cycle, it's possible the projector will have fewer/no problems dealing with it, even when the input is near 60 Hz. This can be tested by anyone with the appropriate PC and projector with DVI output/input. Obviously it can't help projectors lacking a DVI input. 3) The software change idea works on the premise that just because the video card can spin out frames at 60 Hz and higher, we don't necessarily *need* to. If 24 and 30 fps are perfectly acceptable for film/TV, why not for us? Well, there are differences between video and slidehows. Our eyes can accept the drawbacks of low video framerates as there is so much continual motion that we can't detect artifacts as readily---assuming the videographer did a good job. It is very easy to poorly compose a video scene and have it look very juddery, so they use time-honoured techniques to minimize such artifacts, by forcing them into obscure backgrounds while keeping the area of focus relatively artifact-free. Recent hi-def home-theatre systems with 60-Hz progressive scanning have unravelled all this, as they try to display films at higher resolutions and frame rates (60 fps) than they were intended for, and things start looking very juddery. They are dealing with it by either dumbing the system back down to 30 fps, or by artificially generating new frames in between the existing ones (interpolating) to help smooth things out (with a resultant smudging of detail that can make the HD look like regular TV again). An idea I have is to force PTE to output frames at a lower rate, say 24 or 30 fps. So even if the video card is pushing too fast for the projector, any collisions between frames shouldn't be (as) noticeable as mose of the frames are the same. I tried to test this concept by creating a show that simulates pans, without actually panning. I put the same slide in over and over again, each time shifted slightly. When you play it, it looks like it's panning, a la old-style animation, but it's nothing more than a rapid series of still images. I set the slide timing to 24 fps (initially), or 40 ms. The problem? Well, just as explained above for video, it can look juddery, and certainly very much did on my CRT. So I slowed the pan speed down, which helped some, but not enough. So I increased the frame rates back up, to 50 fps or so. Better, but still noticeable judder between frames. And by the way all these adjustments are very tedious to make---at 25 fps a 14-second pan requires 171 slides, each with it's own position setting! So in the end I couldn't make anything nearly as smooth as the built-in pan function in PTE. That doesn't surprise me, but I couldn't even get anything I would consider *acceptable*. Welcome to the world of trying to do smooth animation at low video frame rates. Anyhow, it's possible, and my hope, that my simulation isn't a good indicator. Because PTE has a lot of things to do, maybe trying to flash through slides at 40 ms intervals is just not realistic. However if WnSoft actually modifies the software to permit limiting the output frame rate to a specific value, it might look more acceptable than my simulation showed. The only way we will know is if WnSoft tries it. They would have to make an alpha-test build with the option to manually set the maximum frame rate the software sends to the video driver. Users could then experiment with the setting to set the lowest fps that minimizes jitters/wipes, while remaining high enough to minimize video judder between frames. (Douglas Adams says the answer will be "42". ) Conclusion: 1) (long-term) Hound projector manufacturers for "frame protection" capabilities and/or higher refresh rates. 2) (immediate) Test shows on computers with DVI output from the video card and DVI input to the projector. 3) (short/medium term) Get WnSoft to test a software mod that limits frame rate to a user-specified maximum. Thanks and regards, KDJ