davegee

Hi Peter, I am in total agreement when you say: "it knocks the spots off the old NTSC/PAL/SECAM DVD-video for TV". Some people have to be continually reminded, though, that it's no substitute for the EXE file. If, as you say, you are going to use their LCD TV, is the no chance whatsoever that you could use a laptop connected to the TV? A HDMI connection would give you the ULTIMATE quality wheras some would not quibble if you were forced to use a VGA lead. I wonder if there would be a possible alternative there? They are likely to be able to provide a laptop wheras they might not want to purchase an extra bit of kit like the WD Box. Just food for thought,

Peter, With Ken's help I have downloaded the MP4 and it plays a lot better through MPC from my HDD than full screen via YouTube. Still not convinced about the quality but I haven't seen the EXE to compare it with. DG

Peter, I, too, was not impressed with the quality of transitions. I use my laptop to preview my 1920x1080 shows (EXEs) from my desktop computer and the laptop copes with everything I throw at it so I don't think it is resources. Yet the Abbey show stutters along from one image to the next. It doesn't make any difference if the show is played in real time or allowed to fully download before playing - the result is the same. The images look great at full res but the transitions leave much to be desired (on my laptop). I must confess a little confusion with regard to your comments re VideoLan MP - are you suggesting that the file can be stored on my computer and played on software other than the uTube Player? How is that done? DG

Creating Actions: DG Actions.pdf

Thanks Maureen, We must have had the Gods looking kindly on us - we have been going to the same valley, same village, same hotel, same fortnight for around 9-10 years and I can only remember one year which didn't give us the opportunity to go walking in sunshine for most of the time. If it rains it is usually after dinner - very civilised. DG

Excellent quality at 1920x1200! Just the thing to put me in the right mood for Austria in a few weeks. I loved the late evening shots. May I make one suggestion? You have the keyboard disabled in the show and I wanted to review a couple of slides which was impossible. Unless you have an overriding reason to disable the keyboard it might be helpful to enable it in future? DG

Hi Alan, You can use multiple tracks and apply "envelopes" individually and independantly to each track. Not only that but if you read Igor's reply in another thread you will shortly be able to see the multiple tracks in the timeline. DG

Another improvement on what is a GREAT tool would be to be able to set the PLAY cursor (the RED line) back to the beginning with a REWIND button. At present the only way I can see of doing it is to zoom the WAVEFORM to minimum and drag the red line manually? DG

Hi Mick, OFFSET does what you want (in the AUDIO CLIP PROPERTIES BOX). See: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11969 DG

Time to close this Poll. Almost made the 50 participants but not quite! Here's my take: It shows that 70% of the people who participated are using Widescreen while the other 30% are using Non-Widescreen. The 16:10 and 16:9 aspect ratios were evenly split, each being used by 34% of those who participated. Among the Non-Widescreen users 5:4 was used by 18% and 4:3 by 12% of those who participated. Obviously, this makes 4:3 the least used monitor aspect ratio among those who participated. The LCD/CRT split was 90% / 10% and I suspect that the CRT users are the 4:3 (1024x768) users – nothing technical about that assumption – it's just that the figures are the same. So, my question now is: Do the above results change your view about which aspect ratio you should use to produce your PTE shows? Speaking for myself I produce a mixture of 3:2 and 16:9 shows. I can't remember the last time I produced a 4:3 show. I think that the results above suggest that I am on the right track when trying to match the aspect ratios of what I produce to the aspect ratios of other peoples monitors more closely. Thanks to the 49 people who participated. If you want to carry on discussing the results, please feel free to do so.

So, the fun begins!! DG

Hi Peter, I experimented a little more and found this: I inserted a piece of music (Amazing Grace) and with no alterations it played OK from the beginning. By looking closely at the waveform I could see that the phrase "That Saved a......." started at 12 seconds into the piece so I made the "Start Time" 12 seconds and the Preview started at the correct ("That saved a....") point. I then added a 4 second offset and the music started at the WRONG place 4 seconds in. By increasing the Offset to the same value as the Start Time all was well again. The piece started 12 seconds into the show with the phrase "To Save a....". Obviously not a correct situation and you were, indeed, right! Let's see what Igor comes up with - he seems to have identified a problem thanks to you. DG

Hi Peter, I'm not getting that at all. Obviously not replicating what you are describing! DG

If there are no additional participants in the next 24 hours I'll close the Poll and we can summarize/discuss the "results". DG

No quite true. DaveG recommends using HDMI from computer to TV wherever possible. OR DVI to HDMI with adaptor and seperate Audio Leads (not required with HDMI). Desktops have DVI output - I haven't seen a laptop with DVI out - they are mostly HDMI.

Exactly - it was they to whom I was refering. DG

OK Peter, I agree, but these things don't happen without warning - forward planning? DG

Just a point arising out of Peter's last post: If, for instance, a 1024x768 show (Windowed Mode) appears in a viewing along with 1400x1050 shows (being viewed via a 1400x1050 projector) then surely the facility exists to OPTICALLY enlarge the 1024x768 show to the same physical dimensions of the 1400x1050 shows using the projector's zoom lens? DG

Thanks, Is it fair to say that you use it more for Graphics Layout than pure photographic? I use this site as a first stop when looking at monitors: http://www.dabs.com/category/computing,desktops-and-monitors,monitors/11109-4294957423#filters As you can see the price new (over here) is a little more than you suggest - that's always the case. What's also interesting is that the site categorises monitors as WIDESCREEN, NON-WIDESCREEN and some others. For whatever reason this monitor is classed as one of the "others".

Crossfade, That's a very interesting monitor with a comprehensive spec - it should be at that price! It seems to be a "one-off" at the moment - no other manufacturer making that resolution in LCD TFT (?). Care to share your experiences with it and reason for buying it (apart from the obvious)? I have some friends who are still using 1024x768 who argue that they can't see the icons on larger monitors - I wonder what they would think of that DG

Hi Barry, I still would like to see this poll as just an information getting excercise and not as a "which is best" poll. I fully agree with what you say about 1920x1200 because it puts more pixels on a "full screen" in 3:2 AR PTE shows but it doesn't have the projector or TV backup that 16:9 has. Our (minority) AV interests are never going to have the manufacturers rushing to provide us with what we want so I think that we are being "led by the nose" a little into a compromise. Just a little side question, again just for fun: If there were such a thing as a 3:2 monitor backed up by a 3:2 projector, which would you choose; 16:10 or 3:2? DG

Come on Guys (and Gals)! It would be nice to get 50 inputs to say that we really do have a representative poll. I will close it when it reaches that figure and then perhaps we can discuss what the results actually tell us?

+1 for Stu's suggestion - it has worked for me in the past.

Thanks Lin, There will always be a few who don't fit in with what a poll asks - no probs. WRT your worries about 16:9 - I think that you are coming at it from possibly the wrong direction. For the purposes of PTE it doesn't really have to be 16:9 permanently. It doesn't matter what format you use as long as it is 1080 pixels high. You just get black lines to the sides. Those who want to preserve their camera's 3:2 ratio images have no option but to have black lines somewhere? On a 4:3 or a 5:4 it is top and bottom. On a 16:9 it is to the sides. For those who like the 4:3 format Olympus is the way to go. For those who like 5:4 a Nikon D3 is just made for them. Now if someone would make a HIGH QUALITY 3:2 Monitor in a 1080 pixel high NATIVE RESOLUTION I might just show some interest. Thanks again - it's just a little excercise for fun - no more than that.

Many thanks Xaver.