Conflow

Yachtsman Barry made a very important point which may have gone over peoples heads. He was refering to Hi-Res Cameras etc; where users tend to take large Photo's which emphasise the Moire Effect and further enhance it under certain conditions. Knowing how Moire is created in the 1.st instance is winning half the Battle and Barry is right on the Ball as usual ~ it's very good advice indeed. A Developing Rule: 1) Never take Photo's larger than your Equipments' capacity to process them. 2) If your 'Kit' is running at 1024x768 pixels (0.8 Megapixels) it can easily reproduce Photo's up to 400.Kilobit Size. More than enough for PTE in those circumstances. 3) In this case the Camera should be set to take 1.0 Megabit Pictures or the next step up ~ even its a 7.Megabit Camera~ let the Camera do the reduction down to what you want. Its designed to do that properly. Bear in mind the limitations of your Process-Equipment when Photographing. These rules will reduce Moire down to managable levels and will be kinder to your limited Memory resources.. Hope this simple summary of Barry's words is of some help to you. Brian.Conflow.

Barry,Lin, Igor Barry, I also have noticed this 'auto-posting' effect on the Forum Board. Just last week I was compiling a reply to a query and before I even posted it..Ken Cox had a reply to it...impossible ? so I thought...but there was my (unedited) Post in front of Ken's reply. This seems to be happening in 'Fast-Reply Mode'...I might add that this is one of the features which Microsoft intends to impliment in its XP-SP3 Pak. I will be watching this like a 'Hawk'. (Time is now: 11:39) lets see? Brian.

Hi Lin, As you know, I try to keep Members up to date with this type of "News" as I'm in a position to know about these things. Pesonally speaking from my past experiences I have learnt to be aware of the "Steel Fist in the Kid Gloove" and when it comes to money,there are no morals in large Corporations. Like you, I have turned off the 'Auto-Update Swtch' and I will shall wait for the debris to fall from the Sky before I turn it back on. Regards, Brian.

Hi All Here we go again. Part.2. ..."Both XP-Sp3 Update -and- Vista-Sp1 Update have been suspended"... 29/4/08 As you know I have always maintained that Vista is a 'Business Operating System' and it was never designed to serve the 'Public Consumer Market' ~ well, thats now confirmed. Both the XP-Sp3 and Vista-Sp1 Upgrades have been suspended for the time being due to a serious 'incompatibility-issue' with a component part of Vista which they are trying to put into both Upgrades which means they very much intend to change XP as we now know it ! Its called: RMS, or its full title is "Dynamic Retail Marketing Services" which is a part of 'Vista Business'. It was designed for 'Small/Large Retail Business' with 'Auto-Links' to Web Servers and Lan Networks, whereby Vista could auto-update these Utilities directly,on demand. By the same token it means that Microsoft (or anyone) can drop 'Tracking-Cookies' on to your PC, without your knowledge, to sell to you ~ or see ~ what your Browsing habits are..Legally so, because you 'agreed' to their Licence Agreement. (Can it be switched off - thats the question) So what else is going to come out of the wood-work ? Brian.Conflow. 'Attachments' and 'Links' below will give you all the details. __________________________________________________________________________ Part.1. Advanced warning of a 'New XP Service Pak 3' about to hit your XP-Computers. 26/4/08 The upgrade re-writes major elements of the 'Core-Kernel' of XP-Computers excepting x64. It will over-write many existing 'Upgrades' into one homogenous File and re-write the existing 'Security' algorithms cleaning up the fragmented Files existing and deleting obselete Files. Additional 'Data-Management-Elements' from Vista are to be incorporated. There will be major changes to 'Internet-Explorer 6' tightening up on Web-Security and in particular blocking unsigned 'Drop-Sites' (what this alludes to is uncertain) and its claimed to increase PC.Speed by 10%. Warning: XP Service Pak-1 must be pre-installed on the PC to avoid Installation failure. 1st Update today 26/4/08 13:00------2nd Update today 30/4/08 11:30 ___________________________________________________________________________ Link to Full Article:- http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1368&tag=nl.e589

Hi All, There are three basic types of 'Moire-Effect' (any many variants) but essentially they are:- Motion Moire Effect ~ Scanning Moire Effect ~ Static Moire Effect, and all are caused by simple fundamental 'Electro-Mechanical' differential artifacts. I will try to be simple:- If you are Scanning simultaneously in an X and Y Axis against fixed registration points (Lattices) and your 'synchronisation' is ever so slightly out the errors become accumulative (or bunched) and these become visible due to the greater contrast against other parts of the lattice. Also the opposite is true,where holes are created. Static Moire:- We have all seen this ~ copy a Newspaper Photo and save it. Its 100% certain that the Image will have a regular 'pattena pattern' ~ this is caused because the DPI (Printed Dots/sq.Inch) do not 'synchronously register' with the Pixel-Lattice of your Monitor. Example: 15" Monitor Screen has an area of 151sq/Inch and 5208 Pixels per sq/inch and Printing has 400.dpi/sq/inch. So 13.Pixels are trying to represent 1.dot but Computers dont work that way, they need 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, pixels of their (fixed) lattice for 1.dpi. Now we have a pixel over-run and a pixel under-run ~ bunching is starting to happen and its visible as 'Moire'. You have to experiment with the Monitor resolution to get synchronisation. You have to create more or less Pixels to synchronise the Lattice Frame (ie:resolution) Motion-Moire:- When an Image is panning Vertically, Horizontally or Diagionally the Image is in motion against the 'Fixed-Pixel Lattice' of your Screen. The PC has to contineously 'write' data information into the Pixel-Lattice to create the motion effect. The 'scanning-system' has to turn-on and turn-off each Pixels very rapidally indeed. Problem being that due to 'electron-storage effect' they cant switch instantaneously. So if you are panning Vertically, Horizontally or Diagionally you are writing against those Pixels in the motion pathway that have not yet been extinguished. Again we have 'Bunching' and usually it is a Monitor artifact of slow response speed. Modern Monitors vary in response speed from 10.Millesecs (slow) down to 5.Millesecs (fast) and down to 1.Millesec (ultra fast) ~ thats as fast as we get in the Consumer Market today. All things being equal with 'resolution-synchronisation', the faster the Monitor the better. Hope this helps some Members to understand whats going on. Brian.Conflow.

Colin and Dave, There is a little bit more to this than meets the eye ~ the "Attachment" from my Lecture Notes might help to shed some light on that particular subject. One of you is using the XGA Screen Format and the other is using the SXGA and from the "off" there is a bit of a problem with that. Hope you sort it. Brian.Conflow.

Well Dave, Thats O.K ~ if you're happy with Photoshops' processing of your Images, fair enough. I had intended to show a way of getting the maximum resolution from a 1024x768 Image so that it would show a bigger Image on a Projector Screen without (so-called) 'pixelation' break up. Perhaps another day, Brian.Conflow.

Stonewell, Thats no problem, you can still get a 'Non-Commercial Licence' and whether the Author is living or dead has nothing to do with it. Like 'Music' or any other 'Art-Form' once its published for Public consumption and it comes into the Public Domain you have a perfect Legal-Right to a 'limited-Licence' ~ follow it up. Brian.

Dave, Now I appreciate your terminology...'Actual Pixels'...its a Photoshop subjective definition and you know it couldn't be further from the facts. Because modern LCD and TFT Monitors don't use 'Pixels' ~ I have explained that before. But the Manufacturers are determined to stick to that convention because its a popular, if erroneous definition. Its like DPI in "Photographic Editor Programs" ~no such thing~ thats a Printer definition, dots per square inch. I think I understand what you are trying to do:- You are trying to "ad hoc" adjust your 1024x768 Images in a way as to give you the best 'quality-compromise' when these are Projected on to a Screen. Then you are trying to develop a 'procedure' whereby you can repeat the process at will in the future...am I correct ? Brian. P.S... Ahhh,shucks we deserved to loose that Match ~ but just wait !

Dave, You choose to be dismissive again, but here is what you wrote:- ........"Viewing an image at anything other than ACTUAL pixels means that you are viewing an INTERPOLATED image and are not seeing what it truly looks like....Actual Pixels is what I want"... And another part:- ..."It is advisable to Edit in Actual Pixels"... So Dave can you explain to me what you mean by....Actual pixels....or am I missing something ? Brian.

Dave, You said:-Too much tech-speak!! Dave how are we supposed to communicate with you, so far the 'Teck-Speak' has been at rural level. You said:-Let your eyes be your judge. Already demonstrated with the 'Twin-Image' comparison I described but nobody 'copped-it' ~ the best a Win '95 PC can do is 256 Colours whilst modern PC can easily achieve 65536 Colours ++ and my eyes are certainly the Judge ! You dismissed that as another issue without thinking it through. You said:- The advice, when editing and image, is that you should view it at ACTUAL pixels on your Monitor. You seem to have the misconception that a 'Pixel' is a standard universal Picture artifact of fixed dimension. Hate to dissapoint you, it isn't. Pixel size is variable from .413mm on 800x600 Monitor and .377mm on 1024x768 and so on. Pixels can be square, circular, or a line. and this argument only applies to CRT. Monitor Screens (Cathode Ray Tubes). Modern TFT, LCD, Plasma Screens etc; don't use Pixels they use Sub-Pixels because there is no CRT.Electron-Beam. And the contexural definition of 'Sub-Pixel' varies from Manufacturer to Manufacturer,depending on the Technology used. You said:-Applying this to the computer Monitor/Projector chain I want the same thing - ACTUAL pixels. Well considering the above 'Teck-Speak' what do you mean by...'ACTUAL pixels' You see Guys:- Editing on one particular Screen of a Fixed-Size and Native-Resolution will NOT TRANSLATE to another Screen of same size irrespective of resolution and this applies to Projectors, LCD Screens, TFT Screens and all other Video-Displays right across the board. Everything is Interpolated except what you see on your Screen, and are they really Pixels ? (see above) and can your Computer-System replicate them as the JPeg-Data demanded ? Talking about Pixels:- is 'gobildy-gook' unless you define what you mean and in what application. I am please that Igor took the time to explain his thinking on this matter ~now~ if you refer to the latter part of my previous Post you will see that I was saying the same thing and the above is by way of an explaination. Brian.Conflow.

Colin & Ray, Colin I disagree with you, firstly you have taken my comment out of context and ignored the 'Quality Rendition' issue concerning the 2 Images mentioned. Mathematically speaking your calculation is correct, but if you take the 150Kb Image and show it on a modern XP-System and on a Win'95 System ~ there is a notable Quality difference. Then do the same with the 2Mb Image and you will see a vast Quality difference ~ and I said~ "So which is the better Image? that all depends on the Computer not the Image Size"...unquote. Ray, I agree with you concerning 1920x1080, indeed we have reached the current limits of Image Rendering and in my Engineering circles we use Video-Conferencing Utilities with Large HD-Screens. We have never gone that far up to 1920x1080 simply because visiting Engineers arrive with Portable Laptops "of all Ilks" and we generally settle on 1200 Wide by XXX Height (it varies). So far we have had no Quality problems, except the occassional 'mutilated' or 'Water damaged Document' scanned in as best as can. And as I said, at the end of the day, it all boils down to sheer 'raw' Processing Power and System Buss-Speed and in that respect we are on the limits with 'Windows Op-Systems' despite the fact that we have Processors quite capable of 2-3Gb.Data-Buss Speed. The bottleneck is in our slow 'RAM Memory Systems' and the limitations of Virtual-Memory Access from Mechanical Hard-Drives. Windows isn't helping either ~ Brian.Conflow

Dave, AAaaH ~ I see where you are coming from, its the eternal clash of the "Film Photographic World ~V~ Digital Photographic World" You know, isn't it about time that these Societies & Judges damn well made up their minds as to what they want and stop this "nanny" attitude of "We are the Law" ~ We have them here in Ireland also and none of them can agree. Do they want to Judge "Film-Photographs" or "Digital-Images" made to a Universal Standards Format~ thats the root issue here. Yes, of course you are right, I agree with you ~ there has to be a 'Standard Size' for Judging purposes ~ but here is the stupidity of it all. Two Images of the same subject:- Image(A) could be 150Kb. and Image( could be 2Mb and each 1024x768 in Size. So which is the better Image? that all depends on the Computer not the Image Size. Let me explain:- There is no such thing as a JPeg Image ~ it doesn't exist on the Computer, in fact there are NO IMAGES on any Computer. A Jpeg Image is purely a 'page' of compressed Command Line Data Sets which the Microprocessor interprets and instructs the VGA and Graphic-Card to draw a 2D Drawing on the Screen. Hey,voila a lovely Picture in "virtual-reality" but it doesn't exist in reality, it aint there, you can't hold nor touch it ~ excepting when you Print a facsimile of it and its not the origional, because thats lost forever. Depending on how good the Computer is at de-compression and de-coding the data and how fast its Data-Buss really is and how fast and how good its memory Buffers really are ~ all of these dynamics will have a final quality impact on the perceived Image on a good VDU, and is it good VDU ? and more to the point, is it a good Projector and when was it last Calibrated ?. Example: A 500Kb Image on a modern Computer will deliver an excellent Photo ~ but try the same thing on an old Windows '95 PC ? Not a hope, and how fair is that to a young brilliant Photographer without the proper resources ? and how impartial are the Judges then ! What I am trying to say is, they should agree on an acceptable Size-Format (Such as the Royal Photographic Society Rules) and not on the size of their Projector and 'interpolation' shouldn't come into it, just:- Image Subject, Quality, Artistic Intrepretation & Technique. I rest my case, take care, Brian.Conflow.

Dave & Henri, From a purely Scientific point of view (Optical Physics) if you have an Image 1024x768 Pixels on a 20"/50.Cm Monitor and this is projected on to a 72"/182.Cm Screen ~ following your line of argument means the Projector would have to ratio-metrically multiply the effextive pixel count in the X and Y Axis on the Screen to accurately replicate what you see on the Monitor. Projectors don't work that way,they are Optical Devices irrespective whether they process in Analog or Digital. However if you are talking about (Direct) 'Large HD-Plasma Displays' such as the Large HD-Televisions and Home HD-Screens, these are not Projectors, they are Direct-Image Diisplays ~(purely digital-technology)~ and indeed these can re-process Image-Sizes, such as found in PTE.Shows, into their unique Video-Format for display on their Large Screens. People tend to forget that JPeg Images store a vast amount of data which can be adequately re-processed from 'Thumbnail Size' right up to very large HD-Screen Sizes. How many times on this Forum have Members advised others that their Images are too big although they are still in Jpeg 1024x768 Pixel size format ~ and when de-compressed these Images can be really huge. Thats my understanding of current technology... Brian.Conflow.

Stonewall, Someone is 'trying it on' with you ~ what a load of old rubbish~ and a right chancer too. If that was the case the entire Worlds population would be in Prison for 'Photocopying Documents' All you have to do is acknowledge the 'Works of the Author' in the Credits Screen of your Show and make sure the Show CD-Disc contains a 'EULA Document' (End-User Licence Agreement) as required by E.U.Copyright Law. This acknowledges any contributions to your Show which is made for purely personal purposes and contains no element of monetary reward for the Show. Alternatively look at the 'Flysheet of the Book' an see if there is an ISBN Registration Number and Barcode ~ if not, it has no International Copyright Licence, and if it has, it must be registered with Cambridge University~Oxford University and Trinity College Dublin and other Associated Instutitions. These Establishments will confirm/deny Copyright on request, and will also issue an Educational Licence to any accredited member of the Public, for a period, for a small fee. If you wish to produce these Shows in Public on an ongoing basis ~ join the British Copyright Assoc. It costs some thing like £27 per Annum. Brian.Conflow.

Hi Guys, Surely its all down to 'How Large' you make the Photograph Image's for your PTE Show ? and the Projector is asked to replicate those 're-sized' images on its Screen and we are talking about the Epson-Projector courtesy of Igor and Photoshop can re-size anything even though you might not see the full (oversized) Images on your PC.Monitor ?? Brian.Conflow.

Cor.... I did say I hope it wasn't a 226 read on. Where did your Club buy this 223BW Monitor ~ was it at "Harvey-Norman" ? You will not find the 223BW Listed anywhere in the Samsung Main Website only in its Support-Site because it was specially built for Harvey-Norman exclusively. The 223BW uses the 226 Chassis with a 21.6" Screen. The 226BW uses the 226 Chassis with a 22.0" Screen. When 1st released these Models were specially built for Trade-Shows and also for Demonstration Reviews. The "origionals" were exclusively built by Samsung in their Factory and designated "S" Models. They turned the Monitor Industry upside-down by their fantastic performance of Colour rendition and 2.millesec Screen refresh speed and they got "rave reviews" in the Industry. Sadly the story stops there ~ due to demand Samsung had these Manufactured in Contract-Factories in Poland, Ausralia, China and these had different quality Screens. The "S" prefix on the Cabinet-Label may be misleading as some were deliberately marked as "S" Screens where in fact inside on the Panel they may be marked "A" Australia or "C" China ~these varients are terrible due to the poor LCD Displays. The only thing which may correct the Colour Defects is a special 'Applet' from Microsoft (See below). Microsoft-Link: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details...;displaylang=en (Colour Adjustments on any Monitor) I also 'Attach' write-ups about the 226BW (Aka 223) which may help with your problems but personally I think your Monitor has a Colour-Drive defect. Ie:- The 'Chromanance Decoder Chip' or it could be the 'Colur-Driver Chip' which powers the Screen. Problem Research-Data http://www.bcchardware.com/index.php?optio...9&Itemid=40 (Samsung finding the Model No:) http://www.behardware.com/articles/667-1/s...he-verdict.html (Samsung Colour Calibration Procedure & Tests) Let me know how you get on, Brian.Conflow.

Cor, I am sorry to hear the bad News after all the hard work you have put in, but I am now convinced that its the Samsung Monitor which is the "bogey" in this problem. You have done all the Tests as requested, Loaded all the Drivers and even used the Default Drivers all to no avail ~BUT~ the PC works perfectly with the CRT Display with and without the Beamer and this is all pointing back to the Samsung. By any chance is your New Monitor a:- SAMSUNG Model: 226.BW Series A/C. I hope not. Please let me know by return the Samsung Model No: and Series. Also I need to know what Country are you living in ? Brian.Conflow.

Dave, I do apologise ~'mistaken-identity' ~ my reply was directed to Jeff Goodwin but I pushed the wrong Addresso Button. Strange that he has not responded to any replies posted so far. The other bits were for all to read concerning problems with 'Nero-Burning' quirks ! I appreciate what you said above,sorry about that. Brian.Conflow.

Dave' Its obvious that Roxio (which you use) is different to 'Nero-Burning' which can convert Non-ISO Files to ISO and to be fair it does that 98% of the time successfully. By the way, have you burnt this as a 'Data-File' (mixed program content) because many Burners simply lock-up if the wrong Burner-Format is used. Because CD's are so cheap and if it were you in your situation, I would Burn a re-copy of any existing CD which you have 'burnt' before ~ at least that points the finger at your Program OR the Burner itself ~ its worth the 20.Cents to find out and then one can proceed from there. It could also be a DRM issue, but enough for now until you do a Re-Test. Brian.Conflow.

Ken, I did not know Ron Wilkinson personally but I do recall his many contributions here on the Forum and we did have some 'Off-Forum' exchanges. I join with Jean-Pierre and Al in wishing him a fast recovery and a fast return to his Sutton Camera Club and in particular 'thank you' for bringing this to our attention. Brian.

Thank You.. To Jean-Pierre, Mary.W, Peter, Den, Henri, Ken and all, and last but not the least Igor for all your help and suggestions and Igors 'Instructions' concerning "emulating" the 4.48 Program in Pte.V5.1. All the best from Dublin, Brian.Conflow.

IGOR, Many thanks for the fast reply ~ those limitations are more than acceptable for 'Business-Purposes' and lets hope I can get it up and running on the older PCs and Corporate PC.Terminals in particular. I will report back to you. I do also appreciate your Vista Problems, and as you are aware many of the Industrial & Corporate Authorities and Educational Authorities have flately refused to impliment Vista and about 70% of 'Small-Business' has done the same ~ unfortunately the Domestic Consumer has no choice in the matter. Ireland,England,Denmark,Australia,New Zealand and others and many Universities have gone that route as have the 'ISO World Standards Authority' on the Vista and XML Document problems....I wish every Programmer well in this terrible environment. It was my principal concern that it would not be possible to get Pte.5xx running in the 'Business-Environment' within the Memory constraints imposed. Thankfully you have put me straight on those matter and I shall try again. Brian.Conflow. PS. I had sent you a personal PM about this, please ignore that as your reply is above. Perhaps "Business-Basic" would be a more suitable name for V4.49 ?

Igor Many thanks for that confirmation ~ It seems as if there has been a 'misunderstanding'... Going back to when you were looking for suggestions before you designed Pte.V5xx I thought you were going to incorporate the "guts" of V4.48 into the V5xx Engine ~ it seems that was impossible to do ~ I can accept that because you are using a brand new Engine. So it would appear that V.5.1 simply "emulates" V.4.48 once properly set-up ...... Thats the problem for many 'Business Licence Users' ~ how do we set it up like V4.48/9 and will this minimise the Memory demands ? As you know Industrial & Corporate PC.Terminals have limited Memory, just enough to run their applications, but lately I have found that Pte 5.1 wont run on many of these Corporate Terminals but in all circumstances Pte4.48/9 runs perfectly. Problem being that Pte.4.48/9 is no longer available on the 'WnSoft Website'..thats a pity because it serves a very useful purpose in the 'Business Sectors' and its good Advertising ! Suggestion:- Put it back on the Website and call it..."PTE Business Basic" Brian.Conflow. Correction: Ken I see it in tiny print on the New Look Website ~ it should be renamed as above..

Jeff, I may be wrong, but it looks as if you are using 'Nero-Burning Program' because thats what it does when it encounters something "It can't do"...It locks-up the CD-Burner and the PC and you are forced to hit the PC.Reset Button. Task-Manager won't release it neither will Ctrl.Alt.Del nor Alt.F4 ~because the PC has run out of Page-File Memory~it can't close down ! The 'Run-Time' error message can be generated from many sources within the PC but you will find it was something you done just before the Burn or during the Burn. By any chance did you change a File-Name or give something an 'Illegal File-Name'...thats usually the cause. Don't worry if you have to pull the Mains Plug and Restart, but make sure you keep your finger on the CD-Reject Button during the Start-up ~ once it pops out,close the CD Drawer and all will be O.K...then unfortunately you have to find out what happened ? Brian.Conflow.