Ed Overstreet

When your friend says the show plays perfectly on the PC before burning to the CD, did he play the show from within PTE as a Preview or did he Create the show as an EXE file, save it to the hard drive, and then test-running it from the PC before burning to the CD? I have found that sometimes synchronization will be correct on Preview within PTE but not from an EXE file created and then run stand-alone on the same PC, if some of the image files are too large, as others have mentioned, or if the transition to the second image occurs too early in the music track. To avoid the latter problem, I always begin every show with a black image and begin the transition to the second image (the first "real" photograph or title in the show) at about 5 seconds into the music file, inserting a few seconds of silence at the beginning of that file in a sound editor if necessary to get that second image to come up with the music, if that's what I want. I've found that by keeping my images under 200 KB and by always leaving a bit of "dead space" at the beginning of the show to give the operating system a few seconds to digest the exe file, the synchronization in the stand-alone exe version is identical with the Preview within PTE. If I don't do both these things, there can be a synchronization difference on my PC. I suspect your friend may have found the difference between a Preview of the project in PTE and the EXE file, and the difference probably has little or nothing to do with the CD-burning process. I have trouble imagining what could cause synchronization differences with an EXE file on a CD as opposed to an EXE file on the hard drive on the PC, in fact I strongly suspect if your friend created the EXE file and tested it on the PC without even burning to a CD he'd likely discover the same problem. Though of course I could well be wrong, there are so many things in Windows computers that can mess you up ...

I second Al's opinion and thanks

Hi Ray. Neat trick, similar to something we used to call a "fade to black" effect with a two-projector dissolve unit, wherein you start to fade the first image to a black screen then begin the transition to the second image while the first fade to black is still in progress, about half-way. We generally did this when going between landscape and portrait orientation, but I also used the same effect sometimes within the same orientation but where the fade would otherwise be a bit messy-looking. That trick can't be done in most av software though there's an effect in the newer versions of Internet Explorer DHTML code that permits this. However you could I suppose simulate it with a genuine third image, a separate file inserted between the two where the insert is the first image overlaid at 50% opacity on a black canvas ... The trick you describe is a variation on another two-projector trick some of us used, where we'd insert between a landscape and a portrait image a third image (in your case it would be a duplicate of the first image) mounted in a Gepe plastic clear mount in which the two halves of the mount were rotated at 90 degrees instead of correctly aligned, giving a square aperture instead of a 3:2 aperture, as an intermediate transition between landscape and portrait orientations. Your trick in PTE is more flexible, however, since it can be adapted to any aspect ratio other than 1:1 or 3:2. Another trick for going between landscape and portrait orienation is to use an appropriate horizontal/vertical gate effect. We used to have lengthy debates in the old two-slide-projector days about the landscape-to-portrait transition issue; there are times where doing a simple fade can work (depending on the subject matter in the images) and times where you really want to avoid the "cross-over" third image that appears during a simple fade. Others took the approach of sticking to one orientation or the other throughout the entire show, which sometimes makes sense with some subject matter (e.g. landscape-only orientation during shows based on actual landscapes and portrait-only orientation for shows based on portrait/studio photographs of people) though it can be a bit limiting having images only in one orientation. Sorry this posting and yours are a bit off-thread here, maybe if others are interested we could have a separate thread on how to deal with varying image orientations in a show. I've already touched on this in one of my The Third Image thread postings, since the the landscape-to-portrait issue is a special case of the more general issue in which images in a sequence don't all have the same aspect ratio, which in turn is a special case of a "third image" on the screen where the "third image" (the overlapping image that appears during the transition between two images) displays partial-opacity areas that the two images don't have in common. None of these issues are relevant when you opt instead for running a show with images sized less than the full screen (e.g., 800x600 or even 600x400 images placed on a 1024x768 canvas) and don't centre the images but move them around the canvas, which can be interesting and opens up possibilities of multiple non-overlapping or partially-overlapping images on the screen simultaneously, something you couldn't do with two slide projectors though with lots of patience and money you could achieve with three or more slide projectors. But I digress, sorry

Hi all, quick reply to some of your replies to my last post: no offense taken, Ron, I have a thick skin and your comment wasn't remotely offensive anyway. I've been doing AV since the late 80s and produced a couple of dozen two-projector shows using our club's Clearlight programmer before switching to digital, initally with some DHTML code a friend wrote to run AV through Internet Explorer off-line in kiosk mode. So I've been familiar with "the third image" from day one, maybe haven't used it as well as I might have. Yes I do recall holding sandwiched slides up to a bare tungsten bulb to see what the third image would look like, painful memory... My show-in-stacked-PSD-layers files get to about 150 MB after 25 layers or so, at which point I generally break the show into a second file so I have frames 1-25 in one file, then 26-50 in another etc. I start in this case with frame 25 at the bottom of stack in the second series to get the registration right when I'm positioning the frames off-centre on the canvas, then delete frame 25 once I've got 26 lined up right. Another basic tip which is so obvious it's easy to overlook, is lock the layer position once you've got it lined up the way you want it -- nothing can be so frustrating as to think you're re-aligning a new image when you're actually working on an earlier layer that you'd already aligned and you forgot to lock the position and everything is now out of whack If I had more RAM and MHz on my system than I do, I might let the file get bigger, but at a PSD file of 150 MB on my system Photoshop starts disk swapping and everythig becomes painfully sluggish after that. Slightly off topic, but another tip -- I crop each image the way I think the image needs to be cropped as-is, which inevitably means the aspect ratios of my images are all over the place. To avoid having the image boundaries jump back and forth in the AV show, which is especially annoying when the images are all centred, I find it helps to apply subtle photo-frame effects (try Photoframe 2.5 by Extensis, if I may mention a commercial product here, and if you don't mind the price tag) to make the image edges soft and irregular, by careful selection of frame colours to match colours in common with both images in a sequence, this often hides the "bouncing image boundary" problem fairly well. Another trick is to use some of the special transition effects (like page, barn, circle or rectangle) to mask some of the variable-aspect-ratio problems, but that can get to be distracting and disruptive to your show if you do it too often. Everyone has different ways of doing things, which is what makes our club's AV workshops and AV showcase nights so exciting, we learn a lot from each other. We used to have an annual AV competition, but partly at my urging we've dropped it as many of us have major reservations about competitions in photography, a topic not for this thread or forum I suspect. It's great to have forums like this to share ideas with others outside Ottawa, though, there's always a danger of becoming in-bred in your approach if all you see is what the relatively small number of other AV producers in one city are doing.

Picking up on a point earlier in this thread, re visualizing third images -- and accept my apologies if this new member is covering ground covered earlier in older postings that I haven't seen: A very easy way to visualize third-image possibilities is to create your image sequence draft, or parts of it, as layers in a single Photoshop file. By turning on one image at 100% opacity and varying the opacity of the layer above it, you can see in slow-motion what the fade would look like and what the intermediate possibilities are. Increasingly I am doing many of my image sequences as layers within one or more PSD files (main constraint is how big does the file get before my old PIII slows to a crawl). I start with a black 1024x768 pixel canvas and place the images in transparent layers above that canvas with the image sizes around 800x600 pixels, giving me the option of re-positioning images within the canvas as one way of helping align key elements in adjacent images. This also opens up options of multiple images on one canvas, but that's not third-image it's separate images, another thread entirely. I prefer to do the visualization in Photoshop rather than within PTE or other AV software, because in Photoshop when I see problems or opportunities I can deal with them immediately. But everyone has a different workflow and preference for using software tools, as I've observed during the AV and Photoshop workshops in our club.

My two cents' worth on "the third image," mainly to elaborate a little on points made above -- A useful compositional rule to think about when taking photographs for possible use in AV, is to think about "negative space" as well as "centre of interest" in the photograph. "Negative space" is generally a large-ish portion of the photograph in which little or nothing is happening, often an area of relatively uniform colour or texture. By composing images so as to place both "centre of interest" and "negative space" areas in one of the "rule of thirds" points in the rectangle, one enhances the opportunities for creating third images in an AV transition in which an important element of the next image seems to grow out of the negative space in the previous image. If one tries to adhere to these compositional principles in photography, one generally increases the opportunities not only for creating third images but also decreases the number of "messy" transitions where "image clutter" dissolves into more "image clutter." I hope that explanation is relatively clear. Of course one can artificially create negative space or clean up clutter in Photoshop, but I think it's easier and quicker to work on these things while taking the photographs rather than relying on time-consuming and sometimes unconvincing manipulation on the computer later. The AV group in my club used to spend a fair bit of time in the intro workshops on the concept of the third image, back in the two-projector-and-dissolve-unit days. The third image has unfortunately slipped off the agenda now that we're all doing digital shows. It's good to see interest in this concept being revived here, since third images work just as well in digital as in "analog" shows if they're used thoughtfully and not as just another gimmick.

In my experience (I use a Nikon Coolscan IV/LS40) you should always scan your slides at the maximum resolution of which the scanner is capable, in my case at 12 bits and 2900 ppi which gives a scan of about 3900 by 2600 pixels, depending on your slide mounts. Scan directly into Photoshop through the TWAIN interface and edit the slide as you would any other slide scan. When you've finished editing the slide, then resize the image to fit a canvas no larger than 1024 by 768 pixels (use Photoshop Image Size with bicubic interpolation); the exact dimensions of your scan will depend on the cropping you've done, if any. Save to a JPG (you'll need to have converted the image to 8 bits by now in order to do this) at a Level 5 compression in the Save As JPG dialogue box; this will give you a file of maybe 100 kb which any system should be able to handle in PTE without difficulty. Always scan at maximum resolution and edit the image at full size, then resize when the edits are finished. This gives you vastly better-looking images (and the 12-bit scan depth gives you much better shadow detail) than you'll ever get scanning at lower resolution and then trying to work with the image. The "inches" dimensions in Image Size in Photoshop are totally irrelevant for monitor/projection/PTE display, they're only important for printing. Ditto the dpi/ppi display. All that matters for PTE, web, monitor, or digital projection is the pixel dimensions of the file. As already noted by others, most digital projectors can handle 1024x768 screen size and hence image sizes in PTE. In our experience (in the photo club of which I am a member in Ottawa) digital projection looks best at 1024x768 screen resolution, regardless of the image size. PTE can usually display most images JPG'd as noted above very smoothly at that screen resolution, though some members prefer to resize their images to 800x600 pixels and display at 1024x768, but I've never seen the point to this, as you're not making full use of the "screen real estate." BTW if you are mixing images in both portrait and landscape orientation, you might want to consider fitting all your images within a 768x768 pixel canvas, so the verticals and the horizontals appear to have the same size and area, which they won't if your horizontals are 1024x768 but your vertical images will therefore have to be 576x768 pixels. Hope this helps; if you have any further questions on the points I raise, feel free to email me.

In my experience all images intended for display on the web, over computer monitors, or using a digital projector, should be saved with the sRGB profile not the Adobe RGB 1998 or other profiles. The latter is a better profile for printing, but images in the Adobe profile will appear under-saturated (as another poster mentioned) when displayed on a monitor or a projector through software that doesn't use ICC profiles for colour management. I don't know whether PTE does ICC colour management or not, but even if it does, saving the images in sRGB won't hurt. Photoshop, for example, does ICC colour management, and you shouldn't see a difference between an sRGB version and an Adobe RGB version of the same file in that software (unless you use the "proof colors" control). But Internet Explorer doesn't do proper colour management, and Adobe RGB images displayed using IE will look much less satisfactory than would the same images saved with the sRGB profile. Also in my experience, sRGB will look better than Adobe on a monitor in non-ICC-managed software, whether or not the monitor has been calibrated correctly. In short, for digital audio-visual presentations, always use the sRGB colour profile for your images -- it won't hurt, and in some software it will help. In my experience anyway. Hope this helps.

A rather belated Happy and Peaceful New Year to everyone around the world. I look forward to my first full year of producing A/V with PTE and to seeing what everyone else produces.

And another heartfelt Best Wishes for the Holidays from Ottawa, Canada's national capital. I agree to some extent with Jim and Al about the rain we're getting, but on the other hand I don't have to shovel the stuff! I remember the winter after I moved to Ottawa from Toronto when we got 144 inches (that's about 400 cm) of snow in the month of December alone, the city was worried about its snow-removal budget going bankrupt, and I had to shovel my way out of the driveway every morning to go to work and then shovel my way back in when I came home! Global warming is scary, but it does have its small temporary advantages at least in this climate! Particular best wishes to Igor and company in Russia for the great work they're doing on PTE

I haven't tried using two music files (or more) in one PTE show, so I haven't experienced the problem. Probably the safest solution is to merge (and fade or crossfade if you wish) your music in a sound editor. Most sound cards come with a basic sound editor that will do these things, though you may not be aware you already have the software -- I didn't until a more-computer-literate friend told me how to look for it. Go to Start>Programs and look for a folder that sounds like the name of your sound card manufacturer; I have a Turtle Beach card, so there's a folder called TBS Montego II Apps. Inside that folder there is a nifty program called AudioView 32, which has a well-documented help menu and is user-friendly and easy to use. Failing that, you can do very basic mixing in Windows Sound Recorder (in Windows 98 go to Start>Programs>Accessories>Entertainment, not sure where it hides in other Windows versions). However anything that shipped and installed with your sound card will probably work better and have more options than does Windows Sound Recorder (I've never tried using it as a mixer but I have a friend who has and says it works OK). Failing these two options, go to www.tucows.com and look for a freeware or shareware sound editing program. I've always found it best to work with multiple sound files in slide-show software by doing all the merging, mixing, fading and so on in other software that's specifically designed for sound editing, then save the result to one sound file and use it in the slide show. BTW most if not all sound editors will only accept WAV files, at least AudioView32 won't take MP3, so if you want your music in MP3 you'll have to record and edit in WAV then convert to MP3 -- again go to tucows there should still be some good freeware WAV-to-MP3 converters out there. Have fun!

I'd reinforce Jim's suggestion of ThumbsPlus, it gives you the option (in Gallery view) of auto-renaming your files sequentially which greatly simplifies getting them into PTE if you sort them in a TP Gallery. However the software isn't free; Al's Excel spreadsheet is. Al Robinson has suggested to Igor in another post that a thumbnail viewer-and-sorter integrated into PTE would be a nice Christmas present, with which I agree.

Hi Eddie. I said I wouldn't check these postings, but I did stumble over yours and am glad I did. Misery loves company I'm glad to hear I'm not the only person who's had problems with getting anything into my DVD player that looks right or even runs. Also interesting to note that I'm not the only person who's having problems with Ulead's website lately. I also had problems with Ulead creating VCDs -- there's an error message that I got which I thought meant the burn had failed, and downloading two different patches from their website didn't make the error go away. I kept throwing the CDs into the trash until on a whim I loaded one into my CD-ROM and lo and behold in spite of the error message there were data on the CD and it did in fact play in the DVD player, albeit badly. That problem never went away either. I think this particular technology has a LOT further to go before it's going to catch on. I'm usually pretty good at debugging mysterious computer glitches, and I rarely give up, but this mess has me running for the hills tearing my hair and screaming. As I said, maybe I'll try again in a couple of years when the dust has settled. No I don't have Orlogix, my burner is a Sony CD-RW CRX100E. You're right about not handing something like this over to my relatives and friends; if this gives me trouble, I don't want to think what some of my family and relatives would do if they encountered these frustrations. (Shoes firmly planted into a TV set can be expensive) And I fully agree that PTE is by far the best AV software I've ever come across, I love the EXE shows!

I have decided to give up on using the AVI feature. It has turned into a huge waste of time and effort for me, resulting in nothing of any value to me. I won't repeat what I've already said about the pathetic results I get (in both Roxio version 5 and in Ulead DVDMF2) in VCD format. I've given up trying to figure out whether or how version 5 can create an SVCD, I don't think it can, and even if it could it probably wouldn't be good enough based on what I saw of the VCD it created. I tried to create an SVCD using Ulead DVD Movie Factory 2. All went well until Ulead tried to burn the CD-R, at that point I got a Microsoft error message "runtime error, abnormal program termination." Exit Ulead, nothing on the CD-R, after waiting 22 minutes for Ulead to translate my 2-minute PTE show from the AVI file that PTE only took 19 seconds to generate. I went to the Ulead website; nothing about this error in FAQ nor in the Knowledge Base. I can't contact their tech support, because I'm not registered, because their website won't accept repeated registration attempts even though I bought the software from them over the same website by credit card and downloaded it from there. I have contacted their customer service and am demanding a full refund, will remove the software from my system. This AVI feature is a very low priority for me, and not just because of all the technical frustrations I've been experiencing. The PTE originals are always going to be as good as, and very likely better than, any second-generation copy in another format due to the lower image resolution. PTE EXE files are much smaller than AVI never mind other files, so sending shows over the internet is much faster in EXE. I can live with showing my PTE shows over my computer instead of the TV set for the small numbers of people who visit me at home to see shows; for showing them to the 200 members of our photo club, I run EXE shows over the club's computer and digital projector, why bother with a TV set no matter how big with a crowd like that? For friends and family out of town, I can mail or bring in my luggage many EXE shows on a single CD-R that doesn't take any more space in my luggage nor cost any more postage than would a VCD, an SVCD, or a DVD; besides few of my friends and family have DVD players yet, though all of them have computers and can run the EXE shows and don't seem to mind having to view them on a computer monitor instead of a TV set. Igor, I would far rather that you spend your time and energy on some of the other features on Al Robinson's wish list (original 4.20 beta thread) and less time on AVI, also I think this feature is hijacking the Forum. As a photographer and long-time AV producer I think this AVI stuff has been a waste of my time. Maybe in a few years when I get a new computer with a DVD-R drive and things have advanced a bit more, I'll try this again. For now, this is my last post on AVI and the last one I'm reading about it. BTW I'm not criticizing Igor nor PTE; I'm sure the AVI file that PTE produces is the best possible with current technology. My frustration is with what happens after that, in generating something that will play in my DVD player over my TV set. Maybe it's my equipment (though Ulead claims it supports my Sony drive and Roxio has never had trouble using it), maybe it's the phases of the moon, I don't know nor care. It doesn't work for me, I'm glad it seems to work for some of the rest of you, I hope you enjoy it. It's not for me, not at this time, and it's not worth any more time, frustration, or money from me. Pardon the venting but I think a forum should present all sides of an issue, and I haven't seen this particular viewpoint displayed. Maybe I'm the only user who's had the above-mentioned problems, I hope so for your sakes, I wouldn't wish what I've gone through the past several days on anyone.

Hi Michel. Sorry for the imprecision, I'm speaking only of VCDs so far. I intend to experiment with SVCD to see if it's better, I hope it is because the VCD shows I produced look pretty awful on my TV set I have to say -- in fact I consider the image quality, the sound quality and the transition jerkiness in that format to be completely unacceptable. However I'm not sure yet whether my DVD player will play back an SVCD, I hope so. Will report back on SVCD experiences once I have them, hopefully in a couple of days. I'm using Ulead for the VCDs; the VCDs I got from Ulead are better than what I got with Roxio version 5 but still unacceptable to me. I couldn't get Roxio version 5 to produce an svcd, at least there aren't any control settings or references in the help menu that suggest it can.

I'd like to reinforce Igor's offer to write a good MPEG-2 encoder. I am VERY disappointed with the VCD results I'm getting with Ulead; I will post separately in the AVI tips forum once I've finished experimenting with SVCD. PTE shows look stunning on my computer monitor; so far every test I've done with VCDs through Ulead and the PTE AVI feature produces shows that look pathetic on my TV set. I don't have a DVD burner and won't get one until I get a new computer; if the VCD/SVCD technology doesn't improve, or unless I discover some setting somewhere that makes a significant difference, I will abandon any further use of the AVI button. The results simply are not worth it in my view nor that of my wife, who is not a serious photographer nor a digital guru but knows what she does and doesn't like -- and she thinks the VCD results with my wonderful PTE shows are simply awful. I completely agree with her. Don't know if the problem with VCD is the limitation of VCD resolution or whether this is something Igor could improve on with better encoding -- I certainly hope so. I've noticed that Ulead gives me better VCDs than I can get with Roxio Easy CD Creator Platinum version 5 (not the latest version which is 6 and I hear is better), though I still find the Ulead result unacceptable. But the small improvement between the two softwares suggests to me there may be some room for improvement even within the constraint of the VCD format.

Interesting point about the video cable. I'll remember that if I can't get better results on my playback equipment with a ULead-generated svcd. Has anyone else noticed a difference with a better video cable? Who knows it might even improve the playback of DVD movies, though those look and sound pretty good over the cable I now have. Maybe they'd be even better with a better cable ...

Very possibly version 5 of Roxio isn't able to produce as good results as version 6 of Roxio; I wouldn't know, as I haven't upgraded to that version. From the postings by Ken and Ron I gather that version 6 does svcd, but version 5 doesn't seem to, I can't find that option anywhere in it. So I stand corrected about version 6. Probably the important variable is svcd not Roxio per se. Whatever it is, I stand by what I said about Roxio's version 5 -- it's not worth the bother trying to do a vcd from an avi file using that particular version of the software. Maybe upgrading to version 6 of Roxio is worth it (check the cost though), but I think I'll try ULead since that's what Igor is recommending.

Michel I agree it's not PTE that's the problem, it's Roxio -- or at least version 5, it only creates video CDs not svcd, when I search the help menu (and the hard copy of the manual) in version 5 of the Roxio software, the letters "svcd" don't appear. So I guess that means if I want to do this in svcd I have to get ULead or something else. Certainly I've verified that while a video CD produced in Roxio will play on my DVD player, the result isn't worth the bother. Will let you all know what happens with the ULead trial version. I'm not using state-of-the-art DVD or TV technology either, but neither do most of my intended audiences, so it's important to know what works or doesn't work with people who aren't into the latest digital gadgets.

Batch renaming of files is possible in third-party "light table" software, if you have it and if you sort your slides before working with them in PTE. For example ThumbsPlus has an "auto rename" feature which makes it easy to rename images in a numerical sequence once you've sorted them on the screen. However that software costs more than PTE does; but it (and other similar software) is also very useful for keeping track of your photo archives on CDs or other storage media. Batch renaming would be a great feature to add to the "light table" feature Al Robinson, Jim and I were voting for earlier in this thread, though it would be redundant if you could click-and-drag images into the show list directly from the light table. Sequential naming is only important if you have a large number of pre-sorted images you want to import into your show in the current versions (without in internal light table)

I succeeded in created a video CD from a PTE .avi file using Roxio Easy CD Creator Platinum version 5; I had to generate an MPEG using that software's VideoImpressions feature. I was able to get the show to play back on my DVD player with my television, but the result was truly awful. The resolution was terrible, some of the early images came on-screen initially partially de-saturated, some images "popped" in places, the sound also "popped" occasionally, and the transitions were very ragged. Not something I'd be proud to show anyone. I did this with beta 1 of 4.20, haven't tried it with beta 2 yet. I am downloading the trial version of ULead to see what the difference is on my playback systems and will keep you posted on it. Don't waste your time trying to get a video CD out of version 5 of the Roxio software, at least not from the beta 1 version of PTE; the result isn't worth the bother. (Test show was two minutes long; PTE converted to avi in about 16 seconds, the Roxio software took nearly 19 minutes to produce the MPEG. Painful. (500 MHz PIII with 384 MB RAM, using a four-year-old 1x Sony CD-RW, it probably would have been faster on a newer computer system but I doubt the quality would have been any better with Roxio version 5 on another system)

Thanks Ron and Al. I hadn't noticed the template option in my excitement as I explored all the other nifty features in PTE over the weekend. I'll give that a whirl. (I still would prefer simple Save and Load buttons at the bottom of the Project Options window, but I appreciate that programming those things might not be so simple, so the template feature it is for now anyway ... One can't be too picky after all )

This is the first time I've encountered a software developer who actually invited a wish list for new features! This is wonderful, thanks Igor! I would especially second Al's second, third, and fifth requests (the "light table," tabular format for block adjustment of timings, and the ability to run fades back-to-back (or nearly so) without flickering). The light table and tabular format are already available in Al's Excel spreadsheet (and there are a number of third-party sortable digital light tables available, I use ThumbsPlus) but it would be nicer to have these features integrated into the software. I'd also like to be able to save my own customized Project Options settings so I don't need to reset the defaults whenever I start a new project (e.g., I prefer to turn the mouse off, have the show exit when completed, etc etc). I tend to configure all my shows the same way, and not generally the way the defaults are set. This is a minor thing as it doesn't take long to reset the Project Options, but I'm lazy and would love a personal options setting I could click and reset everything at once.

I know Al Robinson recommended keeping the smoothing setting between 20 and 40 in earlier versions. I've discovered that on my 500 MHz PIII running 800x600 pixel images at that screen resolution, I can get very smooth looking transitions using customized smoothing settings up to about 200-250; only above 250 do the transitions show noticeable flicker on the monitor. I first discovered this when I accidentally set a smoothing on a slide at 600 when I meant to set it at 60; of course that transition (a vertical gate) flickers rather a lot, but it actually works with the music at that point so I left it in. Then I started playing with the setting to test the limit before flicker became noticeable. I never tried such high smoothing settings in 4.14, so I don't know whether this is an improvement or whether that capability was always there (or maybe my eyesight isn't as good as Al's ). Has anyone else noticed this? I really am enjoying the customized smoothing settings, whether the smoothing algorithm is improved or not.

Boy am I impressed with your and your colleagues Igor! I bought PTE just a couple of weeks ago, and about a week ago sent an email suggesting that customizable smoothing for individual slides would be nice, and here it is already! If only all software developers were as responsive, efficient and economical as you guys are! Keep up the great work, I'm looking forward to producing lots of AV shows with this. I ran a demonstration for the AV group of my photo club Monday night, comparing identical short shows on a 1024x768-pixel canvas in your software and another program that we've been using, with the same images, music, effects, and timings, and people were stunned by how much smoother the transitions are in PTE especially the wipe effects -- not to mention the great synchronization timeline . I think you'll be getting some new customers from Ottawa soon if you haven't already.