Ed Overstreet

Hi Lin. I don't want to get into a point-by-point discussion of the above, because we're obviously coming at AV from very different perpectives, but my experience with Pro Show to date does not jive at all with yours. I'm fresh out of patience, I have some projects coming in the Fall in which I know I'm going to want video clips, and I know I'm not getting that from PTE in that time frame, at least not in a "final" release and maybe not even in an early beta (which I'm not going to want to cope with). The 3D stuff and the Mac translations and the multiple monitors are of no interest or use to me. So I guess we're going to have to agree to disagree. Pro Show Producer is meeting my needs a lot better, at least for now. I am genuinely sorry to have to say that, but I must and am.

Pro Show Gold and Producer both support mixing of pictures and videosequences, and do it very well, as I am discovering. Also multiple sound sources. PTE is being left in the dust on this front, even in the "slide show" market. BTW both Photodex products have waveforms in their "Effects" windows, the equivalent of the O&A window. Something I asked for in PTE a year and half ago, others were asking for two and a half years ago (it comes up in a December 2007 post I found in a search on this forum), and something we still don't have in PTE. "I'm only saying" ...

Excellent tutorial as well as some excellent photographs. Should be required viewing for anyone starting out in digital photography, as well as for some of those who have been at it for a while. I'm recommending this to my photo club, if you don't mind.

I second Dave's nomination, plus I'd add Nik Sharpener Pro 3 and (as the need arises) Nik Dfine2 for noise reduction. Nik Silver Efex Pro for conversion to monochrome. Also a few other Color Efex filters, notably Midnight (with partial opacity though, at full strength it's often too much), sometimes Sunshine, and Darken/Lighten Centre can do a great job of "redirecting" the light in any photo especially when used with control points. The graduated density filters in Color Efex Pro are much better than the "real" equivalents, especially when used with control points on landscapes with horizons that aren't flat. Nik Viveza 2 is also a great way to do basic global and local edits, I prefer it to the Photoshop Levels, Curves and Hue/Saturation adjustment layers, and Viveza2 is a great addition to Photoshop Elements which doesn't have nearly as good a curves tool. I've been using Nik plug-ins for nearly ten years now, am a great fan. Go to www.niksoftware.com for more information or to download limited-time trial versions before buying. I should probably also mention that Nik makes a separate version of Color Efex Pro that will run in Nikon Capture NX2. Nikon Capture NX2 was developed by Nikon in partnership with Nik; it is IMO the best software for editing a Nikon NEF (RAW) file (it can also be used to edit a JPG or TIF from any other make of camera or software, non-destructively and better IMO than using "smart objects" or "smart filters" in Photoshop CS3), and all the features of Viveza 2 are already in the Capture NX2 software. Nik offers, or used to, a discount for purchasing both the Photoshop and Capture versions of Color Efex Pro at the same time; all their plug-ins will also run in Lightroom, Apple Aperture, Elements 6+ in 16-bit mode (though not as layers, only on the background layer).

I tried essentially the same thing for a while using Pansonic's Silkypix Developer RAW converter that came with the camera, batch-converting the RAW files to 16-bit TIFs then opening them in CS3. Too much extra hassle in my workflow, I much prefer opening them in Elements 8. Also Elements 8 Editor and Organizer don't keep crashing randomly on my system the way CS3 Bridge and sometimes Photoshop have been doing since I got them. I'm fed up with Photoshop. I do all my editing of Nikon NEFs in Nikon Capture NX2, can't do that with Pano RAW files without converting them to TIF first, same issue. But for NEF editing Capture NX2 is much preferable to Adobe anything IMO.

Personally I've never seen the point of Lightroom, for what I do. In fact I recently bought Photoshop Elements 8, because my aging Photoshop CS3 won't read the RAW files from any of my recent Panasonic Lumix cameras and I simply refuse to spend another roughly $300 upgrading to CS4 or 5 only so I can read RAW files from my cameras (Elements 8 has no trouble with any of those files BTW, and with the rebate certificate I got a new, fully-functional Elements 8 from Amazon.ca for all of $60). After getting familiar with Elements 8, and after installing my favourite Nik plugins in it (perfectly OK on the same computer without a new license, I checked with Nik tech support on that), I find myself using Elements 8 a lot and Photoshop almost never. If I were you, Peter, I'd stick with Elements 7 or upgrade to 8 if you ever get a more recent camera that isn't supported in 7. I've attended a few presentations on Lightroom and have never seen the need for it, never mind the expense .... But different strokes for different folks, as they say

Ditto all the above, looking forward to the beta. Great news and great work!

Absolutely, this gets my vote as well.

I am coming around to your viewpoint on this. I used to scan my system weekly, but the scans never picked up anything, until about a year ago Norton started clobbering innocent PTE productions that clearly can't have been infected by anything, since I'd always had NAV active in memory, the productions were all created while NAV was in memory, and presumably anything that a scan would pick up (that is a legitimate threat) would have been caught earlier by my memory-resident NAV when it arrived, presumably by email or through a website (I almost never download files from others onto my system using removable media, only via email or the internet). Norton gives a nasty "alert" warning now that it's been about four months since I last scanned the system, and I'm still looking for a way to turn off that alert. And I've never had any virus or other malware problems affecting any PC I've owned since 1988 ... I think the anti-virus software companies have crossed a dangerous line between protecting us from legitimate threats and hyping non-existent threats to sell upgrades to their software. It's a bit of crying "wolf" too often -- if they keep doing this, they're going to annoy users so much that people may start ignoring legit threats. I haven't upgraded my Norton since I got 2005 in October 2004, and I won't upgrade until I have to (likely whenever I get my next computer). They've lost sales from me because of this nonsense, and I hope they continue to lose sales. Virus definition updates, yes I'll renew that subscription, but more expensive software upgrades, no way

I agree with others that it is outrageous for an anti-virus program to delete files on your system without first asking you. However, first check the options on your anti-virus program. Many of them let you set the software to alert you of a potential problem and to ASK you what you want done about it, rather than automatically deleting the "threat." That isn't usually the installation-default setting, but you should be able to over-ride the default. Also, some anti-virus software lets you exclude certain folders on your system from being scanned for viruses. If you store all your PTE creations in a folder (or a folder hierarchy), ideally on an external hard drive, and then list that folder/hierarchy as an exclusion, you should be OK. Just don't put other folks' AV shows in that structure, only your own that you know were created on your system while your anti-virus and firewall programs were functioning. And, of course, back up your work, off-line either to a detachable hard drive or to CDs/DVDs. Ideally anti-virus software shouldn't be creating these problems, but the problem with any security features (not just on computers) is they sometimes create more disturbance, complications and problems than arguably they're worth. The trick is to be sensible in using security features. If you keep your anti-virus software current and your firewall up whenever you're connected to the internet, and don't open dodgy emails or load anything on your system from someone else's portable media without first scanning it, arguably there is no need to scan your hard drive, certainly not an external drive. I only scan my C drive two or three times a year; I have my anti-virus software defintions updated automatically, I keep my firewall up at all times that my computer is connected to the internet, I'm very careful about emails and email attachments from people I don't personally know or from whom I haven't asked for emails and attachments, and I've never had a virus infection or anything else bad happen to my system. I have had Norton Anti-virus kill some of my PTE-created EXE and SCR files when running a system scan, but I keep backups, I've since excluded my AV archive folders from scanning, and I don't scan the system very often ...

Thanks very much for taking action on this, Igor. I hope they respond promptly and appropriately

Further to my earlier post, I have verified that Norton Antivirus 2005 does allow one to Exclude from virus scanning an entire folder and its subfolders. Presumably later versions of NAV will also allow this. I have accordingly instructed NAV to exclude the folder structures which contain my AV shows and screen-saver backups (these folders are all on external hard drives). I am a bit reluctant to exclude the screen savers my system is using, because they are all stored in c:/Windows/System32 root, which also contains a lot of other OS files that likely get targetted by viruses. It's probably safest not to exclude anything in that folder, but to keep backups of your PTE-created SCR files in a separate folder, maybe even (as I do) on a drive other than C. Since most of us probably use unique folder names for our AV collection, and since there are so many folders and files on most of our computers, I think it's probably safe to exclude the entire contents of an AV folder structure from virus scanning. I suspect that most viruses are going to be trolling through c:/Windows and assorted subfolders, and not roaming around the entire computer and its peripherals. (Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems to me that if I were a virus programmer I'd concentrate my energies on clobbering the operating system, which is going to do the most damage ...) The other choice of course is not to exclude anything, wait until you notice your slide shows and screen savers disappearing, and then go to the NAV Quarantine, hope they are still in Quarantine, and restore them. And as Peter rightly points out, be certain your files weren't in fact infected before restoring them. I wouldn't restore an EXE file that came to me from another user, for example. But anything I've created on my system should be safe from infection, given I never take down my firewall or disable NAV temporarily without first physically disconnecting my computer entirely from the internet. Every software I've installed on my system has first been scanned by NAV before I install it, everything I download is downloaded while NAV is active in memory, and I leave NAV active whenever I'm working in PTE or any other software, so it's highly unlikely that an EXE or an SCR that I created on my own computer is going to be infected. Especially, as was the case with all the files that NAV 2005 killed on my computer, when those files had previously survived several years of monthly system-wide virus scans and never were modified after they were created

Maybe one of the moderators can move this post, perhaps to an FAQ since so many of us recently have found various anti-virus programs running afoul of our PTE EXE and SCR files. What I'm about to say applies to Norton Anti-virus, also applies to AVG (see http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8165&pid=51457&st=0entry51457) and probably applies to other anti-virus software. NAV 2005 (on my system) has periodically attacked and removed screensavers and some EXE shows that I created in PTE. My wife's NAV 2010 is very aggressive in going after both SCRs and EXE files. Today I did a little exploring in both versions of NAV, triggered by a related question from Peter Appleton to me in a private email regarding my experience with NAV 2010. I discovered that, if you're lucky and were sensible in the way you configured your NAV options, your precious SCR and EXE files are NOT dead and gone -- they're backed up in Norton's Quarantine folder somewhere. The question is, how to get at them and restore them. It's possible in both 2005 and 2010 (and probably other versions), though it's by no means obvious at first, and of course it's different in 2005 and 2010. I'll tell you how to do it in 2005, which I know a lot better than 2010, but I'm sure with some exploration you can find a way in 2010 to work around the problem. The key to prevent the problem (one hopes, but one is never 100% certain with these things ) is to find where your current version of Norton lets you set "exclusions" from scans. In Norton Systemworks 2005 (which is where I have NAV 2005) do the following: go to Options>Norton Antivirus Options, then drill down to Other>Threat Categories>Exclusions. There you will find a browser icon where you can select individual files (maybe even a folder, I haven't tried that yet) to be excluded from virus scans. Use this to identify all those AV shows you want to protect from the paranoid fantasies of Norton when it scans. Then, to be extra safe, go to Options>Norton Antivirus Options>Other>Threat Categories>Advanced there is a tick box labelled "what to do when deleting threats>create backup file in Quarantine." If that isn't ticked on by default during installation, it's a really good idea to tick it on, IMO. NOW. If you did that, or (I hope) if Norton does that by default, then whenever NAV attacks one of your EXE shows or SCR screensavers, you should be able to open the Norton interface, find the Quarantine, look at History to see what was a "risk" and was removed, and you should on that page find a link that will let you restore the file to your system (after telling Norton "yes I bloody-well DO want it restored, now go away please"). NAV 2010 cleverly hides this option under a tiny, innocuous little blue link labelled "Options" on the quarantine history page; when you ask to restore the quarantined backup file, it gives you an option (use it!) to tick on a box saying "exclude this file from virus scans." The key to getting your files back, if you didn't already have them backed up off-line on a CD, DVD, or external hard drive (and if you didn't, why didn't you ) is to make very sure that neither you, nor Norton automatically, ever clean out the Quarantine holding-area until you're certain what's there isn't something you want to keep. Another work-around I've adopted is that all my EXE AV-show files are now stored on a USB external hard drive. In fact, I create all my AV shows and screensavers on that external hard drive, not on my C drive, just to be safe. I NEVER let Norton scan that drive, just my C drive. No one except me can access that external drive, and with NAV resident in memory all the time, plus an active firewall, I seriously doubt any nasties are going to get into that drive, so why bother scanning it? I also keep backups of my screensavers on that drive, in case Norton some fine day takes it into its head to go hunting screensavers for fun. The best solution would be for Norton to stop being so hyper-aggressive with our Wnsoft-created files, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen. I know some people who visit this forum don't know the above stuff; for the others, please indulge me for pointing out what might be obvious to you but wasn't to me until I figured it out earlier today ...

I haven't (yet) had Norton clobber one of my EXE shows, but both NIS 2005 (my system) and NIS 2010 (my wife's sytem) have clobbered some of my PTE-created screen savers, intermittently. As suggested above, I've learned to back up all my PTE projects (including screen savers) to an external hard drive, and to limit NIS's scanning solely to my C drive. I've repeatedly found that if a screen saver is deleted by Norton, if I wait about a week and then re-install the screen saver from my external drive, Norton leaves it alone. The problem clearly has something to do with Norton; some of these screen savers were created several years ago and survived multiple virus scans before raising a false-positive red flag. They've never been opened or revised since being created, so it's impossible that they were somehow infected by a virus after being created. Especially since Norton has always been active on both computer systems and wouldn't have let a virus through anyway ... or so one would hope.

Hi Dave, sorry if I came across as slapping your wrist, that certainly wasn't my intention. I guess I should refrain for posting things on forums until after I've had my morning coffee Mea culpa. Having now had my morning coffee I actually find myself agreeing with you on the importance of making the resolution of the show visible to the user, and in fact even to the producer. I now remember that I have several PTE shows from a few years ago that I created at 800x600 and some others at 1024x768. It can be a jolt to run one of these on a 1920x1080 display, when one didn't remember ... which I often don't. I now wish I'd put that information in my file names, maybe I'll go back into my archive folder(s) and rename the EXEs accordingly. To my mind the safest way of keeping that info with the show is to incorporate it into the file name itself, which is always going to be visible in Windows Explorer or any other file browser. Keeping in mind of course the need to keep file names manageable in size ... I guess there are no easy answers that will please everyone. I have a personal preference against "cluttering" (to my mind, of course) the title or credit slides with technical information inside the show, which is why I'd opt for doing it in the file name. But that's me and not everyone. The ideal might be to convince Microsoft to work with Igor and company to work on having a pop-up display in Windows Explorer that gives you some file properties on the show, ideally at least the resolution and the run time, the way you usually get pixel dimensions when you mouse over a JPG or sound-clip length when you mouse over a WAV or MP3 file in Windows Explorer. Or maybe that information could somehow be incorporated into the Properties display you can get when you right-click on the EXE file, if Microsoft agreed. But I somehow don't think it would be worth Igor's time to try to convince Microsoft to do something like that, given my impression of their "responsiveness" to developers, from what I've heard through the grapevine

Sorry I haven't had my morning coffee yet, should have read more carefully I was reacting more to Dave's comment about including the information in the title slide, and not paying as much attention to the other comments. I still would resist following Dave's suggestion of posting the run time (or other technical information) in a title slide, though.

Personally I'm not a fan of including technical information in title or credit slides. I find it distracting when I see it, and most people in the audiences to whom I display my shows couldn't care less how long the show runs or what resolution it is. This information is important for the organizers of an event, or perhaps for people who are thinking of downloading and viewing a show, I admit. But it doesn't have to be in the title -- it can be in the file name (or in an email to the organizers, or in text posted on a website next to the download link if it's not a submission for an event). Our AV Group requires submissions for our showcase nights to have a file name that includes the producer's name and the run time. We don't require resolution information (since our submission rules specify what that will be), but that could easily be added. So for example, <Ed_Overstreet_Windmills_6m24s_1400x1050.exe> only we don't ask for nor need the 1400x1050. And unless we allow more than one submission per producer, we neither require nor expect a subject or show title in the file name. Just <Ed_Overstreet_6m24s.exe> is all that we would require if only one show per producer is allowed. (The run time makes it easier for the organizer to know whether there will be a time problem for the evening and helps in organizing the shows in a "batting order.") We don't have any requirements as to what is included in title and credit slides. Most of us usually have a title slide of some kind, though that isn't a requirement (and the title slide isn't always, nor is it required to be, the first slide of the show). Either a title or credit slide usually includes the name of the producer, identifies the music, and (if it isn't otherwise obvious from the title or the photographs and the producer thinks the information is important for the audience) the credit slide(s) may also include information about the location depicted. But none of this is required. I suppose these things will always vary, depending on the producer's intent. Some shows I've seen also include in the credits information about what camera and lens(es) was used in taking the photographs, which is further information I don't want or need to know and that adds nothing to my enjoyment of the show. But that's a personal taste. Which is what it ultimately comes down to -- personal taste. What information do you, the producer, want or need to communicate to the viewer? Except for submission requirements for an event I wanted to enter, I would resist or probably ignore any "rules" that someone tried to foster for title and credit slides. I'm having trouble seeing how including run time or resolution information in a title slide embedded in a show really helps people who don't know if they want to download a show, since they aren't going to see the title slide until they actually download the thing and start to run it. Which is one of the reasons I'm suggesting that information might be more suitable in the file name, if that is visible to the person contemplating a download. Or, if you're posting the show on a website, that information could appear on the website next to the download link.

Further to Xahu's suggestion above and my reaction, there's another change that might possibly help avoiding confusion between the file name and the object name: Currently in the Properties box, the file name field starts with the path for the file, then of course the file is at the end of the path. People like me, who sometimes create shows in folders that are buried in several layers of folders on a hard drive (rather than one folder on the Desktop, which I prefer to keep clear of working projects to avoid cluttering the Desktop), then often find that the file-name field under Properties tab in O&A isn't very informative because all I can see is the beginning of the path name, in most cases. Other software when displaying a file name at the end of a long path will replace the path with "..." and only display the file name, e.g., "...file1.jpg" rather than "F:/AV Projects/CWM Visit/RAPC Demo show/file1.jpg" or some such. The full path isn't really necessary for display IMO, especially if one follows "best practice" and keeps all the files for the same AV project in the same folder. I need to know the file name, not the path which is the same for all the files in any of my given projects. In the above example, the full path-and-file name is too long to display in the file name window, all I'll see is "F:/AV Projects/CW" or some other truncation, which is useless in identifying the file name, because it will be the SAME display for ALL the files in my show folder! Truncation of the file name display only to show the file name, replacing the path with "...", would make it a lot easier to figure out what the file is (one can always click on the icon that brings up the dialog box, which shows a thumbnail of the file, but that's another step to perform and is very awkward now that the file name and object name are on separate tabs). This would be especially helpful if the file name and object name were, as Xahu suggests, placed on the same tab instead of different tabs as now. Another option would be to have a small thumbnail of the file displaying either next to the file-name field or maybe even in the Objects List (sort of like the thumbnails you get in the Photoshop Layers palette). Though that might not help much when working with alternate and very similar versions of the same picture, it would make it more obvious when the mis-match between file name and object name is more extreme.

Another factor that seems to make a difference on my system, especially with animations, is the spacing between transitions (the amount of time between the finish of one and the beginning of the next one) and, in the case of some animations, the speed with which the transition occurs (a pan-and-zoom often looks a lot smoother if it's done slower than when it's done very quickly). I'm no expert on these things, but I suspect these factors affect how smoothly the software or operating system can "digest" the demands being made on them, especially with higher-resolution images. On my system (1 GB RAM and 128 MB video memory, Windows XP Home SP2), in a demonstration show I'm preparing for my club, a very extensive but leisurely pan-and-zoom through a 4000x3000 pixel image, spread over about 80 seconds, runs very smoothly and noticeably smoother than a pan-and-zoom in another 4000x3000 pixel image, spread over 24 seconds, and smoother still than an 15-second pan-and-zoom through yet another 4000x3000 pixel image. My supposition on this point is admittedly based on a small sample of cases, but it is indicative, I think.

That would certainly be an improvement over the present situation, and would make it much easier for the unwary to spot a discrepancy and correct it if that's what they want or need to do, to keep things clear in their own minds. I haven't done any "real" computer programming since about 1969 (in Fortran IV on punch cards no less ), but I suspect putting the file and object names on the same tab would be a lot simpler to program and cause fewer complications in the software code than some of the alternatives one might contemplate. However I should leave that determination to those with more extensive and more recent software experience than I have.

Interesting. So it boils down to whether in the Object List you prefer to work with the actual file names or to work with some other names you choose to give the objects. Personally, I much prefer working with the original file names, no matter how arcane they may be (thanks to the camera's automatic file-numbering), to keep things absolutely clear in my own mind what picture I'm working with. But I take your point, not everyone works that way. Which reinforces a suggestion made in private correspondence that PTE's behaviour in this regard should be conditional on the user's choice between some default behaviour ("preserve original Object List names on file replacement") and an alternative ("automatically replace Object List names with new file name, on replacement"). At least that way the user can choose and not be compelled to have to remember to go in and do a manual correction each time, whichever his/her work preference. Also providing this option somewhere, probably in Project Options, would help remind at least some users that there is a choice to be made here ... and that also would provide a place in the user manual to mention and perhaps briefly explain the choice. As I mentioned earlier, at the moment there is no mention of this in the user manual or anywhere else convenient to a user, and IMO there ought to be, since (at least to people like me) the current behaviour isn't logical or at least isn't what I'd expected.

It has finally sunk into my thick skull that my entire problem was caused by the fact that PTE doesn't update the Name field in the Properties tab in O&A when one replaces a picture in the Object List. It doesn't even do this when one changes the image file using Change Image File in the main timeline, even when there are no other objects in the O&A Object List for that Slide. I think this is absurd. If I change the image file, certainly in the main timeline Slide point never mind in the Objects List, it seems to me the Name should automatically update. It is far far too confusing for the novice, intermediate or even fairly advanced user to have to "know" that the field needs to be updated manually to avoid confusion, especially when this is not mentioned anywhere in the user manual that I can see. This behaviour is utterly inconsistent, not at all user-friendly, and IMHO utterly absurd. The Name field in O&A Properties automatically is filled with the correct file name when one first adds a slide to the main timeline. Why should it not automatically update when a Change Image File operation is performed, given this? I thought I should post this here, rather than in what I hope soon will be a post under Ideas and Suggestions as well, for the benefit of any poor soul who tripped over this bad programming decision, finds this thread, and wonders how to fix the problem in current versions of PTE. It's easy to clear the confusion manually, but you have to know that, it isn't obvious or even easy to know this, and why the should you have to? I gather from private corresondence there are those who think any changes to the Name field should be manual, but honestly I can't imagine why I or most other users I know would ever want to change a picture in PTE, whether in the Objects List or in the main timeline, and NOT want the name automatically updated appropriately. The current behaviour of the software in this regard defies my concepts of logic and consistency. If someone wants to change the Name to something other than the file name, or for God knows what reason wants it left at the name of the PREVIOUS occupant of that slot in the Objects List (which is what is now happening), put the onus on that person to make the manual change, not the other way around. My two dollars' worth (I feel a lot more strongly on this than two cents' worth, in case you can't tell)

I agree with Conflow's observation that a 4:3 show will look terrible when displayed at a full 16:9 HDTV screen. However many of the new widescreen TVs (at least my 42" plasma Panasonic) has a menu option that lets me display 4:3 materials in that format. Yes this results in black bars on the sides, but the images look great and I don't mind the black bars, having lived with them for years (at the top and bottom of the screen) when viewing widescreen DVD movies on our old 4:3 CRT TV. I'd rather live with the black bars than have to re-create all my shows or convert all my slides for them. When you get a widescreen TV, get one that has a 4:3 display option on it. (My LG 23" widescreen monitor on which I'm typing this, in 16:9, also has a 4:3 display option on it if I want to use it. I think this is pretty common.) As someone mentioned earlier, we as well are not getting the new digital cable or satellite subscription. There is so little on TV worth watching any more (at least here in Canada), we use our TVs mainly to watch DVD movies (almost all releases we can get free from our public library, for a week at a time, if we're flexible on when our "number" comes up on the wait list). I used to watch the CBC National News but it's just as easy and more convenient just to visit their news website, which I've set as my home page anyway. And I don't watch sporting events, which is the only other reason I can think of for watching TV (the "reality shows" and other related drek are too tedious for words). And the annoying commercials that are now fairly common on some DVD movie releases are easier to get out of than the bloody commericals on most television broadcasts, when you're watching live. For me, television broadcasts are a thing of the past, I almost never bother and don't miss it... So for me, the way the TV industry is going re: aspect ratios is utterly irrelevant for my photography and AV work. BTW one of the things I love about my Lumix LX3 and GF1 cameras is not only do they have a 16:9 aspect-ratio option, but you can set "rule of thirds" guidelines to appear on the screen, and those automatically adjust to the new aspect ratio (preserved the one-thirds division points but in that new format) which really helps in composing images in the new format. However I only project my shows at our club, which has a projector that only "does" 4:3 (as far as I've noticed) so until that changes, there is little incentive for me to switch to 16:9 ... but that's a bit of a digression from the thread, sorry. The main point for this thread, in my opinion, is there is no reason why what the TV industry is doing should make any difference to your photography and AV work, if you're doing it for recreation and not commercially.

Thanks Peter. In the meantime, maybe it might clarify things a little if I paste below a paragraph that I included in my private email to Lin when I sent him the mediafire link to the zip backup of the problem. It's probably a clearer exposition of why I got into this mess in the first place, than my rambles in my earlier posts to this thread: "I was playing around with superzoom effects to demonstrate to my club (see slides 6 and 8, all effects done in the O&A window for those slides) and was doing zoom-in effects when I thought, why not try a zoom out. I'd already programmed slides 10-12 (in the original layout in step one) as a zoom-in, so I swapped slides 10 and 12 for a zoom-out using Change Image File, then removed slides 11 and 12 from the main timeline and tried to insert them into the O&A objects list for slide 10. That is when the proverbial handcart went merrily off to Hell (see step four). The work-around is also included, which works with the three slides out of the main timeline as (Lin) suggest(s) in (his) tutorial. I now see why (he) went that route in (his) tutorial and not my route Smart move ..." I had done the image swap several hours (maybe even a day) before actually getting to the O&A work, and when the problem occurred I'd forgot about the Change Image File stuff I'd done earlier. I remembered that when I woke up this morning ... There no doubt are other circumstances in which this problem can be triggered, but this is the one that I tripped over.

Thanks Peter and Stu. I completely agree with both of you; there needs to be some consistency in the software in handling file naming and keeping them consistent with how they're named in the Windows Explorer window, lest the unwary (like me) trip over the inconsistencies and not understand what the is going on and why. I think a separate post under ideas for next version is a great idea, but I'd prefer one of you to post it, I'm not sure I can word the topic header or the content coherently enough. I know what the problem is (I think) but I'm having trouble articulating it. I just know it's a problem for me, I really don't like it, and I think there are lot of other users out there less sophisticated and patient than I am who are going to bridle big-time if and when they trip over something like this. I won't repeat in a public forum the inventive stream of invective that poured out of my mouth when I first saw this happen