davegee

Mike, Please remove the expletive and get in touch with Ronnieboot west who will send you a PDF on this subject. DG

Hi Ron, That's why I gave you the link to show that the changes were made to Beta 11. DG

Ken, Sorry, but this sort of thing just hits me in the face!! DG

Colin, You didn't say what quality level you saved the B+W shots at? I'm willing to bet that after doing the B+W conversions, if you saved at quality 12, or used Save For The Web you would be able to get away with it. The beauty of SFTW is that in a two-up configuration you can see exactly what you are going to get. Ultimately, going back to the RAW file and starting from there is the answer. DG

Lin, Ken, Please compare the areas I have indicated (taken from the mono versions) with the corresponding colour versions during the change-over. I'm viewing on a 24" IIYAMA 1920x1200 Monitor from my normal viewing distance of around 3'. Lin, You are correct. I'm suggesting that the original JPEG was/might have been a quality 6 JPEG and was then converted to B+W and re-saved (once again) at quality six. The originals are OK but the second generation saves are overcompressed. DG P.S. My examples were saved at quality 12.

"Where did you hear about this software" ? DG

Colin, I have watched the show at 1920x1080 and agree for the most part with what has already been said. However, in the spirit of making a CONSTRUCTIVE comment my enjoyment was spoiled by the rather nasty JPEG artifacts displayed on some images. To give just one example, the first butterfly in black and white has some artifacts which disappear when the image changes to colour. This leads me to GUESS that you PERHAPS took the colour JPEGs and made the B+W versions from them? Whatever the reason, I think would have enjoyed the show far better without the artifacts. Sorry! DG

Thanks Roger! DG

Five minutes spent preparing your measurements will save an awfully long time at the construction phase. BTW the "truncated triangle" (hexagon) that I speak of in the EXE should be made from the same original triangle. Use the pen tool in PS at MAXIMUM zoom and you'll have a really accurate 426Hx492W triangle. DG

Ken, Which version of AVG are you on? I have played it on my up-to-date laptop with no probs. DG

Here's an EXE showing the methodology for making a Truncated Icosahedron (Football to you and I) in PTE. Best viewed at 1920x1080 (or 1920x1200). Also available here with music: http://www.beechbroo...ile.asp?id=1964 DG Icosahedron.zip

No Ron, You misunderstand - I was trying to show you that it was not a bug. You don't have to change anything. In the SLIDE view, the figure shown in the bottom right of the slide icon includes both the INCOMING and OUTGOING transition. That's the change that Igor made. It wasn't too difficult to find after all: DG

Not at all Robert - Never say Never! It's just that my D700 will not shoot movie and I can't see myself getting a movie capable DSLR any time soon. I have tried video from a variety of sources just to keep abreast of what is going on and a possibility some time in the future would be a compact camera with HD facility. Right now I'm very happy with the D700. DG

Thanks Igor!! DG

Ron, You really must try to keep up - I think what you are seeing is the result of recent changes that Igor has made. If you remove your transitions - make the transition time zero - then the slide view and timeline will show the same value. There's a thread somewhere explaining the changes - someone will jump in with a link. DG

Before going down that road try inserting the video in a "Mask". If the subject of the video is "static" positionally, you could create a mask which cuts out a lot of the extraneous background. Worth a try? DG P.S. Just tried it and it works OK. The size and position of the mask(s) can be varied by using keyframes to follow the "action". It might not be exactly what you are looking for but it's an option. DG

Sorry, Igor - Lunch got in the way!! PM sent. DG

Thanks Paul, The cheque is in the post! I don't subscribe to the N vs C debate if I can help it but when it comes to PP'ing that's a different matter. I'm a fully paid up member of the Ex T90 Owners Club and still miss that camera but somewhere along the way I strayed into the Dark Side! DG

OK Igor, Stand by. I uploaded a MAC executable to Beechbrook which was made out of V7 Beta 12. There were around 26 MAC Version downloads but one person came back and said it wouldn't work. I then checked the same MAC EXE on my grandson's Intel MAC Laptop and found that it would not load there either. I made a MAC EXE from V6.25 and tried that and it worked OK. Media Fire: http://www.mediafire...17upxo709uohan2 I'll send project file by PM. You can download the "working" version from: http://www.beechbrook.com/pte/downloadfile.asp?id=1962 DG

The last slide should have told you that it was the Nikkor 70-300mm VR (at the long end) on an FX D700. DG

Peter, If you have the time try the settings I listed here: I have varied the fps and have not seen any differences. DG

Hi Igor, I have found that making an Executable for MAC from Version 7 is not working (for me). I have not used Unsharp Mask and I have turned the Navigation Bar off. There are no Video Clips included. I reverted to Version 6.5 and was successful straight away with the same Project. DG

It's very hard to define Peter and I have not compared the same show via Laptop/EXE/HDMI and MPEG4/USB for quite a while now. The "lead-less" advantage of the MPEG4 is the deciding factor. From memory I'd have to say that I noticed a VERY slight difference in the images themselves - a "grittiness" that is not there in the Laptop/EXE/HDMI version. There is the potential for differences in that one method depends on the quality of the Media Player in the TV and the other method depends on the quality of the Graphics Card being used in the Laptop. My Laptop has an nVidia 8400 GT GPU with 256Mb of RAM. In this instance I don't think that it's a case of USB versus HDMI - I think that HDMI is faster but the differences that I THINK I see are to do with image quality and not motion smoothness. Viewing distance is around 8-10 feet for a 32 inch screen - same for both. I will repeat what I have said before - it is VERY slight but if I wanted to display at what I consider to be the VERY best quality I would go for EXE/Laptop/HDMI to be on the safe side. What are your settings for making the H.264 MPEG4 Video? DG

Could I ask if anyone here has downloaded the MAC version and whether it works or not? I have had one person out of 24 downloads saying that it doesn't work on his Intel Mac. (That doesn't mean that the other 23 did work). I have no way of trying it. DG

Hi Robert, Just to clear up any possible misunderstanding, I am not importing H.264 video into PTE and exporting as H.264 MPEG4. What I have been talking about is exporting normal PTE Projects as H.264 MPEG4 (typically 1Gb for 10 minutes). I have experimented with short low res video clips introduced into a project and edited from within PTE and they work fine. Yes, I then use a USB memory stick (Kingston 16Gb) to play these in my TV's Media Player much as someone with a WD Player would except that, as I have said, the advantage of having no wires connecting TV to HDD etc is tremendous. It could well be that this is introducing the (slight) drop in quality. I would prefer to think that it is the conversion process from PTE to H264 MPEG4 which is causing this (SLIGHT) difference that I perceive between the Video version and the Laptop/HDMI EXE version of the same show. DG P.S. I have also noticed that the resulting MPEG4 files play far smoother on my TV's Media Player than they do in MPC/QT on either of my computers.