frets3 Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Hi, PTE family,"Visiting John" is a virtual hike through our canyon and woods in the foothills of central-coastal California. When we're too old for our morning walk, we can still watch this. Visiting John at Beechbrook Cottage: http://beechbrook.com/pte/index.aspBest wishes,David White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lin Evans Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Hi David,Nice walk! What a great place to spend one's 78th year - rocky spot for a headstone though! LinHi, PTE family,"Visiting John" is a virtual hike through our canyon and woods in the foothills of central-coastal California. When we're too old for our morning walk, we can still watch this. Visiting John at Beechbrook Cottage: http://beechbrook.com/pte/index.aspBest wishes,David White Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets3 Posted July 22, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Hi, Lin,We call the great white stone by his marker "Moby Rock." John, Becky's father, chose it a few months before his death. To me, it's almost as though he now owns the woods.Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lin Evans Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Hi David,What a great final resting place and beautiful tribute. It's too bad that he passed away before his time but the opportunity to choose one's place in such a beautiful location is rare and the opportunity for you and Becky to visit frequently is, I'm certain, very much appreciated.Best regards,LinHi, Lin,We call the great white stone by his marker "Moby Rock." John, Becky's father, chose it a few months before his death. To me, it's almost as though he now owns the woods.Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Perhaps it is just my PC but most of the zooms on this show were jerky and stuttered.Did anyone else find this?Neil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lin Evans Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Hi Neil,It's probably the size of the original images. They played fine on my system but I have a pretty powerful graphics environment with lots of resources.Best regards,LinPerhaps it is just my PC but most of the zooms on this show were jerky and stuttered.Did anyone else find this?Neil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets3 Posted July 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Perhaps it is just my PC but most of the zooms on this show were jerky and stuttered.Did anyone else find this?NeilHi, Neil,Sorry about the display problem, and I believe that Lin is correct about the reason. Every image is 3888x2592 in order to allow deep zooms while maintaining screen resolution. The original project was huge, 278 mb. So I compressed the shots to about 2 mb each (Photoshop level 7) and reduced the project to 57 mb. But the graphics hardware is still burdened with the original pixel dimensions. Considering the jerky performance on your machine, I should have cut the resolution as well. Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cagney123 Posted July 23, 2007 Report Share Posted July 23, 2007 Hello Neil...I too had this problem. I see others have commented on this situation. I originally downloaded to my laptop, which has a full gig of ram...and yet it played poorly. Obviously the graphics card came into play. I have found ways around large format files for the most part, since I used to used dial-up until recently. If the image starts with a significant zoom, just start with a crop. In the past I have used several crops for one zoom. It works well and keeps the digital load smaller, but I have no idea how David did his magic. Bottom line, great show...I love the virtual idea. I must dig out old backpacking slides and see if I can do anything like it. My favorite part was the rounding the rock to see the marker part. Great stuff.Jeff Lunt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neil Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Thanks everyone for letting me know.Neil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegee Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 This played OK on my machine with no glitches and no stuttering etc. (3Gb Dual Core Processor, 512Mb Graphics and 2Gb RAM).You are asking quite a lot though, if all of your images were that size (3882x2592 or thereabouts).As we discussed previously, if you only use a 200% zoom you only need a 2048 pixel high image for maximum quality in your 1280x1024 show. I am guessing that is what it is because only half of the JOHN in the title shows on a 1024x746 monitor. I have viewed on my 1280x1024 monitor and all is well. It is helpful to the viewer to put the intended resolution for optimum viewing in the credits.You could try making a 1024x768 show with image sizes tailored to suit the amount of zoom each image is subjected to. In this way you will get optimum quality and everyone will be able to enjoy your work.Can you describe/list your Screen Options?DaveG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets3 Posted July 25, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 Can you describe/list your Screen Options?DaveGHi, DaveG,I didn't consider that clipping might occur. Here are the show's screen options:Windowed mode without border (preserves color settings despite ATI cards)1280x1040 Hardware acceleration (D3D)Solid color (black)100% of the slide to show main imageIn retrospect, I realize a couple of ways to reduce the bulk of an overweight file:One of the shots was zoomed to 383%, but the lower magnification of some did not require their high resolution. Of course, you and Jeff are correct that trimming unused perimeters from zoomed images reduces processing overhead.Thanks for your comments.Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davegee Posted July 25, 2007 Report Share Posted July 25, 2007 That's what I thought.Windowed Mode 1280x1024 shows CROPPED on a 1024x768 screen.The only really SAFE option is 1024x768 windowed mode. If you use FULLSCREEN the show viewed on a screen bigger than yours is going to be interpolated and pixilated and not good - you can't win.However there are some guys here still on 800x600............DaveG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfa Posted July 27, 2007 Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Thanks for the show David, played fine on my setup.Nice "sting in the tail" at the end and nice use of the zoom, also one of my favourite pieces of music. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frets3 Posted July 27, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 27, 2007 Thanks for the show David, played fine on my setup.Nice "sting in the tail" at the end and nice use of the zoom, also one of my favourite pieces of music.Hi, John,Glad that the show played played well for you. I've had some anxiety about it faltering on some systems. Nice to know that the quartet is special to you, too. Best wishes,David Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.