What size slide show do I make

[JRR]

....

JRR I remember getting hooked on Kia Power Show in the early days before I tried PTE, I don't know if any of you discovered that, but I am sure some did. I was turned off a little by the 800*600 size limit....

Barry I had completely forgotten about the Kia Power Show software !!

Oh how far we have come....

[Ed Overstreet]

Barry I had completely forgotten about the Kia Power Show software !!

Oh how far we have come....

Omigod this is truly scary! I too discovered Power Show some years ago and played with a lot. Interesting transition effects, but the "light table" was a tad tricky to work with as I recall.

Scary because this is before Jim joined our photo club (he was a member of one of the other clubs in the area at the time, I think) and before he and I met. I can't believe how we've all traveled on these same paths over the years ... Yes PTE is a HUGE improvement

Sorry we are drifting a wee bit off topic ...

[xahu34]

Xaver, sorry I don't understand your post.

Barry,

Regarding Shakespeare and this thread, let me offer you a multiple choice:

- As You Like It

- All’s Well That Ends Well

- Much Ado about Nothing

Best regards,

Xaver

[Guest Yachtsman1]

To be or not to be, that is the question;

Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer

The slings and arrows of insufficient ram & rom,

Or to take arms against a sea of troubles,

And by opposing, end them. To die, to sleep;

No more; and by a sleep to say we end the aggrevation caused

The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks

That flesh is heir to — 'tis a consummation

Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;

To sleep, perchance to dream that any future up-grade of PTE will suit my equipment.

Yachtsman1

[xahu34]

Eric,

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate!

(Abandon hope, all ye who enter here!)

Regards,

Xaver

[thedom]

Barry,

I understand your point.

But as you probably already know, 4K display resolution (4096 x 2160) screen should be the new standard in less than 5 years.

Unless it will be Ultra HDTV (7680 x 4320) ? http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/14/33-mega...-on-the-air-in/

I guess, right now, most of us resize their images to fit the biggest screen resolution we have... and depending on our hardware (processor & video card)

But I think it depends on our demand about image quality too... and our eyes.

Does it mean we have to keep our pictures at the highest resolution possible to have the best image as possible and to be able to rebuild our slideshows in the future ?

The answer is certainly YES for me.

[mhwarner]

Like Barry and everyone else here, I too have struggled with the slideshow size issue. Since all of the shows I currently make for sale are delivered on DVD (presumably for replay on set-top DVD players) and I have no way of knowing what size or resolution TVs will be used, I started with 1024x786 and have recently moved to 1280 x 1024. Perhaps after the forced over-the-air conversion to HD in the US in June, I will think about a different ratio and size.

Since I haven't yet purchased a HD TV (it's at the top of my shopping list right now), when I have done shows for display here at home, I use my 19" monitor and thus size my shows for as close to full-screen as possible on my monitor (1920 x 1200). For a lot of those shows, I don't even bother to resize since they won't be downloaded and size/bandwidth isn't an issue.

However, regarding the idea of redoing old shows, as the size/resolution/quality of the monitors or TVs improve (as well as that of the projectors many of you use in AV clubs), the options available in PTE are constantly improving as well, and the options and technology of our image editing programs usually get more sophisticated with each iteration. In addition, presumably our own competency improves as we become more skilled at working with our images. More than likely, if I were to redo an old slideshow, I would probably re-edit some of the images in Photoshop, perhaps apply different plugin filters, use more zooms, pans and masks, etc. So would I want to just take an old existing slideshow and upsize the images. Probably not. As long as I have access to my original digital files, I would probably look at the old show, perhaps make note of the images I used, and then redo it with the most up-to-date technology.

Just a few thoughts.

[Barry Beckham]

Dom

I hadn't seen that information, but even that size is not out of the question to make as a standard show, but probably a bit premature for 7,680 x 4,320. Take a camera recording 6 Megapixels it would fit the bill quite nicely for what I suggest, using the files at full size from the camera. A Canon 5D Mk1 about 60% of full size and a 1Ds Mk3 at 50% size.

Its just that it would be nice if I could bring some of my older shows right up to date with regard to size. I wish I had thought of this a while ago.

I have attached a little flow chart here as I may not have described the thoughts I had as clearly as I thought.

[Ed Overstreet]

However, regarding the idea of redoing old shows, as the size/resolution/quality of the monitors or TVs improve (as well as that of the projectors many of you use in AV clubs), the options available in PTE are constantly improving as well, and the options and technology of our image editing programs usually get more sophisticated with each iteration. In addition, presumably our own competency improves as we become more skilled at working with our images. More than likely, if I were to redo an old slideshow, I would probably re-edit some of the images in Photoshop, perhaps apply different plugin filters, use more zooms, pans and masks, etc. So would I want to just take an old existing slideshow and upsize the images. Probably not. As long as I have access to my original digital files, I would probably look at the old show, perhaps make note of the images I used, and then redo it with the most up-to-date technology.

I think this is a very sensible approach, one that I am inclined to follow (now that I've finally been doing most of my editing with Nikon Capture NX2 which means I've got the original RAW files with all the edits stored inside the RAW file). I think this is what Yachtsman was alluding to in his earlier reference to RAW editing. Rather than create (for today's equipment) over-large JPGs, as display devices evolve I'd be inclined to go back to the original RAW files, revisit the editing (as/if needed), and generate new JPGs at larger sizes (and different sharpening) as the need arose or the spirit moved me. That is very easy to do with Nikon NEF files if they were edited in Capture; getting back the original edits in Photoshop can be a huge pain, as much of the edits can only be saved non-destructively as Smart Objects which create horrific PSD or TIF file sizes for archiving. Not sure what happens in Lightroom editing, I don't use Lightroom, but one hopes it's a bit more efficient of archive space than is PSD format - it would be pretty hard not to be. NEF is a VERY efficient archive format for storing non-destructive image edits, including selection masks. I'm not familiar with Canon's proprietary RAW editor, or Bibble, or some other software, but there are some very attractive options (and more efficient options) than Photoshop for this sort of thing, certainly for Nikon owners Capture NX2 in my opinion is much preferable.

[Ken Cox]

Barry

I found that when the ability to make vcd,svcd and video came along, - then the rapid change in hardware availability,cost and technology -

i had to completely rearrange my thinking re pict size and music

there was never a truer statement than

"BIGGER IS BETTER"

LOT EASIER TO RESIZE DOWN THAN RESIZE UP:)

so think big, i dont think you will go wrong

ken

[cgbraggjr]

The 'problem' with RAW files is that when you zip your master show, you aren't using the RAW images, so you have to do some bookkeeping to keep track of the RAW masters. No biggie, but ...

I've been making my shows, which are much different in function from what most of youse guys do, to fit my projector. I'm convinced now I should be making large masters from which to make shows tailored to the equipment.

And for Xaver - "Measure for Measure", with a side helping of "Passionate Pilgrim".

[xahu34]

... And for Xaver - "Measure for Measure", with a side helping of "Passionate Pilgrim".

Argonaut,

Thanks a lot for your friendly advice! I would like to continue this communication, but I fear that in this case we would be accused for making this topic loose its way

Best regards,

Xaver

[Barry Beckham]

Well, why add something to a post that is obscure, which you must know will go over most peoples heads? How does that help a discussion?

[xahu34]

Well, why add something to a post that is obscure, which you must know will go over most peoples heads? How does that help a discussion?

I am pretty sure that my humor is not to everyone's taste, but I do not like very much ponderous debates on subjects which I consider trivial in nature. I'm sorry!

Regards,

Xaver

[Barry Beckham]

Well, perhaps you could make a list of all those subjects that cause ponderous debate so I can avoid them. The last thing I want to do is offend.

Or, you could not read them

[AnKo]

I preffer to follow the HD standard (1920 x 1080), since I use PtE to prepare shows on the TV screens. I believe the resolutions of digital camera's will not go any further then the high end camera's of today (12 Mb/image), because of its limitations in storage and handeling on PC's.

Like others here, I will redo any old slideshow in to the HD standard of today.

With Lightroom (non-destructive) my NEF images can be "tagged" as part of any "collection" (read: slideshow) I want to make. This will make it very easy in the future to export any givin old slideshow collection to new JPG resolution images, without the loss of quality.

To play my HD slideshows I make use of this very cheap HD (and other formats) media player. Its easy to connect and to transport.

http://www.wdc.com/en/products/products.asp?driveid=572&language=en

Regards,

André

[Barry Beckham]

André

I think a resolution of 1920*1080 isn't a bad standard, but what I am not so keen on how much I would have to crop off the top and/or bottom of the images from my camera format. You have to cut off enough that it could interfere with the composition of some images. A bit like the effect we already get with 1024*768 and 1280*1024, but on the width rather than the height.

I believe the resolutions of digital camera's will not go any further then the high end camera's of today (12 Mb/image), because of its limitations in storage and handeling on PC's

I think we are way above cameras of 12Mb already and images of 30Mb on screen is not uncommon. The new Canon 5D Mk2 must be around that size and my 1Ds opens at 30Mb.

My idea is to create shows well above these specs (as a template) and build in some protection for the future without having to remake shows later. Its not as though it is a quick process to put together a slide show.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Barry you must be talking about enhanced images as produced in PS the camera referred to is rated by Wikipedia at

21.1 megapixel (5,616 x 3,744 pixels), compared to 12.8 megapixels (4,368x2,912 pixels)

sRAW1 mode (10 megapixel/3861 x 2574 pixels)

sRAW2 mode (5.2 megapixel/2784 x 1856 pixels)

98% viewfinder coverage, 0.71x magnification, compared to 96% coverage

3.9 frames per second continuous shooting, compared to 3 frame/s

DIGIC 4 image processor, compared to the DIGIC II

Maximum 310 large JPEG images in a single burst with a UDMA card, compared to a 60 frame buffer

Larger 3.0-inch (76 mm) LCD with 640x480 VGA resolution (307,200 pixels/921,600 dots), compared to a 2.5-inch (64

Yachtsman1

[Barry Beckham]

Yaughtsman

Andre was talking about a 12 Mb/image and I assumed he meant an opened image. I was just going by the images we have here from the original Canon 5D (12.7 Megapixel) that open up on screen at 36.4Mb. That is what the image size window says in Photoshop and the 1Ds (21 Megapixel) shows at 60.2 Mb

These are both 8 bit images, open them as 16 bit and they double in size

The New 5D captures around the same number of pixels as my camera so I assumed the new 5D will open up in Photoshop to around 60Mb, or close to it

[Guest Yachtsman1]

The comment was an illustration on the camera progression, not what can be acheived by manipulation.

Yachtsman1

[xahu34]

... My idea is to create shows well above these specs (as a template) and build in some protection for the future without having to remake shows later. Its not as though it is a quick process to put together a slide show.

At present time, I think that the best way to handle the problem of image sizes is provided by Wings Platinum and m.objects. There you can use images of arbitrary sizes, while the presentation software can automatically pre-process its own graphics data as it is needed for the monitor/projector in use. For each exe-file to be created, the user can specify the optimal resolution.

Regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

Please forgive my late entry into the discussion - any opinions are my own and I wouldn't want to force them on anyone.

What size slide show should I make?

And then Why ?..........

As a secondary point, do you like to fill your screen with the slide show, irrespective of the resolution of that screen?

Like myself Barry you have 1920x1200 (16:10) monitors and in this respect your decsion is made for you. If you are making shows for your own consumption then 1920x1200 (16:10) is the only way to go. The downside is that, whilst "static" images are 1920x1200 any PZR requires a larger file.

If you want keep your camera's 3:2 aspect ratio then a small space between the outside edge of the monitor and the edge of the 3:2 images with a slight shadow.

I lke to fill the screen and also like to see a white line around images regardless of whether they "fill the screen" or are window mounted.

JPD has shown us that it is possible to create a show at 1920x1200 (16:10) and by just changing a couple of elements (globally) change the whole thing from a 16:10 show to a "Fit to screen" show in 4:3, 5:4 3:2 or any other format you wish in a couple of seconds. The background changes size to compensate and the white line also assumes the desired aspect ratio.

I hasten to add that this has to be done by the producer when creating EXE files and and not the viewer and at this stage is not automatic.

Other considerations are Projector Resolution/Aspect Ratios. The only choice out there at this time for anyone upgrading from 1024x768 is (IMHO) 1920x1080 (16:9) and this conflicts slightly with your monitor resolution.

I have just finished a presentation for the Welsh Photographic Federation and did it at 1920x1080 to suit their new projector. Because it will be distributed to a variety of clubs etc and be viewed on a variety of different monitors/projectors I had to make sure it "fits to screen" and that all elements stay in exactly the same place on all resolutions/aspect ratios. So far no problems.

The bottom line is that YOUR monitor resolution/aspect ratio should determine what you produce. Your images should be the same resolution as YOUR monitor (unless you go for "window mounting"). You CAN adapt your work to suit other aspect ratios and in your line of work is, I suppose, desirable.

DaveG

[Barry Beckham]

Yaughtsman

I appologise if I am misunderstanding you, but those sizes I posted were not manipulated in any way. They are straight opened files into Photoshop from a Canon 5D and Canon 1Ds. I don't really know what you mean by The comment was an illustration on the camera progression, not what can be acheived by manipulation.

Dave G

The bottom line is that YOUR monitor resolution/aspect ratio should determine what you produce. Your images should be the same resolution as YOUR monitor (unless you go for "window mounting"). You CAN adapt your work to suit other aspect ratios and in your line of work is, I suppose, desirable.

The trouble with this Dave is that we have been doing that for the past few years and in those few years technology has left our 800*600 and 1024*768 pixels shows a little behind. Size isn't everything, but a 1024*768 slide show looks a little lost on the screen I am now using. That is what prompted the thought and I suppose the question I am pondering now, will that continue and can I take some action now to build in some future proofing.

Suppose I take my 1920*1200 monitor size image and prepare them in future at double size. I then get images at 3840*2400 pixels and although the show may not run super smooth at this size, as long as I can create the template show, it wouldn't matter that much, because this show would never be meant for showing.

Once that was made, not only can I create any format I want, (PTE5.6 has made this less important) reasonably quickly with just a picture size change, but I have enough pixels to cope with perhaps the next flat screen monitors we may buy.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Barry

My post about your camera's rating was in response to the comment:

"I believe the resolutions of digital camera's will not go any further then the high end camera's of today (12 Mb/image), because of its limitations in storage and handeling on PC's."

For the run of the mill photographer 12.5mp is probably as high as they would aspire to, I use Nikon and they class their D3X at 24.5mp as a professional camera. Their latest run of the mill camera the the D5000 is rated at 12.5mp only.

Have you considered the commercial aspects of changing your existing shows? I assume you would retain the standard sizes for tutorials?

Yachtsman1

[AnKo]

Hi Barry,

I think a resolution of 1920*1080 isn't a bad standard, but what I am not so keen on how much I would have to crop off the top and/or bottom of the images from my camera format.

As a matter of fact, I do not crop my D70 images. I just resize them to a width of 1920, not concerning about height and like you, I work with a 1920 x 1200 LCD.

This resizing is very easy to do with Lightroom in a batch.

Isn't it so that as long as you keep the aspect ratio the same, an existing slideshow will automaticly be filled with the same images in (any) other resolutions (but with the same name)? This gives you a lot of freedom to produce the same slideshow in differend resolutions, but with the same aspect ratio. And as long as consumers switch to 16:9 LCD TV's this is a good strategy in my opinion.

About the size of images, I ment the size of RAW images, not opened.

Kind regards,

André