davegee

No Paul, ....and possibly the answer as to why is that I shoot in sRGB in camera and when this is changed to RGB in NX2, no colour shift takes place because RGB is a wider colour space. Any alterations I make in NX2 or PS are possibly going to take colours outside of the sRGB space - I don't know for sure. It seems likely that any changes to a blue sky are going to be influenced because that's where the differences are (to me) most evident when changing to JPEG. Changing from RGB to sRGB before saving as JPEG doesn't seem to influence the colours that much, but the process of changing from TIF to JPEG does have an effect on colours especially blues. I would emphasise that I am refering to images (JPEGS) introduced into PTE or the Web - none of this refers to images for printing. These are purely my observations - nothing technical. DaveG

Paul, I don't get the same result as you. No matter what version of Photoshop going back to PS6 I have always had the same result as described above. Change to sRGB immediately before going to "Save for the Web.." - the before and after will always show "identical" colour in the "2-up" display. The saved JPEG (sRGB) when viewed in PTE always looks like the sRGB version before saving. If I don't change from RGB to sRGB then the saved JPEG will display a different colour in the "after" version of the "2-up" display and also when the JPEG is used in PTE. I always use a blue sky to judge whether there is a change in colour and this is where I think it will be most pronounced if the change to sRGB is not done. I don't know what I'm doing wrong but I can definitely say that I must have been doing it consistently wrong since PS6, PS7, CS, CS2, CS3 and now CS4. DaveG

Paul, I always shoot in sRGB in camera and process in RGB. There's a reason for this, but it is irrelevent here. The process for creating a JPEG for PTE is as follows. (For printing it is different). NX2 converts the RAW file to RGB and I do my initial PP (as much as possible) before sending to CS4 as an RGB TIF file for final processing, cropping etc. (My default colour space in NX2 and CS4 is RGB). Two things need to be done before saving as JPEG: 1) Convert to 8 bit 2) Convert back to sRGB This can be done manually but I choose to create an action which I assign to the F4 key and it converts to 8 Bit, changes the colour profile to sRGB and opens the "Save for the web..." dialogue ready for making final adjustments to JPEG quality and assessing any JPEG artifacts by using the "2-up" option. It also has the advantage of showing immediately if there are any (accidental) colour issues. I find that a clear blue sky is usually a dead giveaway. 1 Button press and it is done. Save the JPEG and in PTE the sRGB version will look identical to the RGB version in CS4. DaveG

potwnc, Images don't HAVE TO BE sRGB for PTE or the web. However, if you compare the RGB images saved as JPEG with the originals (side by side) you will see a difference in the colour between the originals and the JPEGs (mainly in the skies). PTE shows made up of RGB JPEGs will, I'm pretty sure, look magnificent but will not display the same colour characteristcs as the originals when viewed side by side. Please see my previous post (#5) and, if you are so disposed, try it for yourself. The OP saw the difference and was looking for an explanation. DaveG

Agreed Tom, It is not possible to set the Zoom for the "x" scale to "0". It is also not possible to set the "Size in Pixels" to "0" in "Size.....of Parent". DaveG

Paul, Images need to be sRGB for PTE and for uploading to the web. To see the difference it makes, use "Save for the Web..." and use an RGB image. Then set the interface to "2-up" - you will then see the difference between the original and the JPG when saved. If you change to sRGB before "Save for the Web..." there is no difference between the "2-up" images (colour-wise). DaveG

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=64268 DaveG

I have been able over the last 24 hours to do some comparisons of the cameras I have owned over the last few years and in a totally non-scientific way try to ascertain the differences (if any) when their images are saved as JPEGs in PS. METHODOLOGY The images from my Nikon D70, D200 and D300 cameras were from my archives and the D3x image was downloaded from the Internet. In anticipation of JRR’s question I thought it best to stick with one brand. Using NX2 I was able to retrospectively change the RAW data in each of the files to Neutral Picture Control and Sharpening OFF (no one sharpens their skies – do they?). No other changes were made to any of the images. All four images started off on an equal footing – the D3x image was already Neutral Picture Control and Sharpening Off. After sending to PS each image was resized to 1920x1200 using the crop tool so that the longest side of each (landscape) image became 1920 pixels wide. After changing the MODE from 16 Bits to 8 Bits and changing the Colour Profile to sRGB I then used “Save For The Web” so that an instant comparison was available between the original image and the final JPEG at varying quality settings. THE RESULTS Starting with the D70 (3008x200 pixels) and concentrating on areas of continuous tone (sky at the horizon) the pixilation was severe at quality 50 (quality 6 in “Save as”?) and became acceptable at quality 80-90. The D200 image (3872x2592 pixels) produced better results with pixilation being evident at quality 50 and being acceptable at quality 70. The D300 image (4288x2848 pixels) was even better and produced minimal pixilation at quality 50 which disappeared at quality 60. The D3x image (6048x4032 pixels) had no sky in it but I was able to concentrate on large areas of continuous tone and the interface between a light tone and a dark tone. I could detect absolutely no pixilation at all at quality 50. CONCLUSIONS It now becomes obvious to me that quality issues are not solely dependent on Photoshop’s ability to save to JPEG but the combination of different camera’s images and Photoshop’s save as JPEG function. My “obsession” with quality began when I had the D70 and became aware of the “problem” without actually understanding the issues. I continued to produce maximum quality JPEGs when I bought my D200 and D300 as precautionary measures. Having carried out this experiment I now believe that I could relax my quality issues a little and (with my current setup) accept quality 80-100 without worrying too much. However, there are still a lot of D70s and similar cameras out there as well as cameras with even smaller sensors. To give “blanket” advice about quality issues would be foolish without knowing what camera the person receiving the advice has. At the upper end of the quality scale saying that quality 100 (12) is advisable is fairly safe. But, with respect, saying that quality 50 (6) is acceptable without knowing the camera statistics would be, in my mind, a foolish statement. Now, how much is that D3x again? DaveG

Hi Barry, Thanks for the file. I suppose I could have found one somewhere on the net as I did last evening with a D3x file. I have done some checks with images from a succession of my own cameras from the last few years and the results (non-scientific; using purely my eyesight) are interesting to me. More of that later today. DaveG P.S. To Jim - could you tell us what camera that image came from? It tends to tie in with my test results.

It would be very interesting from my point of view. So, yes please - something with plenty of clear blue sky. DaveG

Barry, You raise an extremely interesting point. Does an image from a full-frame 22mp DSLR suffer less from JPEG artifacts than an image from a 12.3mp APS-C DSLR? Anyone prepared to donate a full-frame 22mp RAW image for testing (or know where there is one available for download)? DaveG

Barry is correct when he says that CONTENT is the important thing, but I would like to pose the following question: When anyone (not just Barry) says something like "I have been praised for the quality and sharpness of my work" - what would the reaction have been if they (the people who did the praising) had seen the quality 12 version instead of the quality 6 version? I'm involved in a similar discussion at the moment regarding the showing of competition work in a compressed format instead of at actual pixels. Everyone seeing the work says "marvellous work" but they haven't seen the originals! If they had seen the originals at actual pixels they might have said "B****y marvellous work" and justice would have been done to the original authors. I always feel that it's a bit of a put down when I'm presented with work which could have improved on issues like image quality - "It's good enough for the punters" (My words) DaveG

OK, maybe PS Quality 12 is a little OTT but, anyone not being able to see a visible difference between a quality 12 and a quality 6 image side by side at actual pixels needs to pay a visit to a decent optician. If, on the other hand, quality 6 does it for you, then you should carry on saving at that quality. Also, if the guys who save at quality 12 have systems which will handle it, that's OK too. DaveG

Hi Andrew, I think that you are on the right track, but I would offer a couple of suggestions: When uploading to Mediafire ZIP the EXE file? The book effect seems to be "backwards"? The impression is of the "spine" of the book being on the right hand side and not the more normal left hand side. Your show ends abruptly on the "CREDITS" title page. Nice images of a place I visited a few years ago. DaveG

I have had a couple of notifications in the last 24 hours and on each occasion they were SINGLE notifications - no duplication. DaveG

Eric, I don't really understand your final statement/question but......... If you take a 3000x2000 image from a digital camera and resize it to suit the three most common laptop/computer configurations you will get the following: 1024x682.666666 for the 1024x768 projector. 1400x933.333333 for the 1400x1050 projtor. 1620x1080 for the 1920x1080 projector. You may notice that the 1920x1080 is the only format which allows for a 3:2 resized image in WHOLE pixels? You mentioned a 1024x576 projector - I've never come across one but a 3:2 image resized for this format would be 864x576. I have ALWAYS worked on the basis that Projector Resolution = Laptop NATIVE Resolution = Image Resolution. The only time to deviate from this is when PZR is applied to an image. DaveG

Eric, I'm afraid that you are not thinking straight. Consider a 2:3 portrait image. On a 4:3 1400x1050 projector that's a 700x1050 image. On a 16:9 1920x1080 projector that's a 720x1080 image. The 16:9 format allows you to get more pixels per foot on screen for ANY aspect ratio image at actual pixels. The figures for a 16:9 image on the two different projectors are as follows: 1400x788 for the 4:3 1400x1050 projector (at actual pixels) - 1,103,200 pixels. 1920x1080 for the 1920x1080 projector (at actual pixels) - 2,073,600 pixels. If you consider an 8 foot wide image that's 175 pixels per foot for the 1400x1050 projector and 240 pixels per foot for the 1920x1080 projector. DaveG

1) In "File Panel" used slides names are in BOLD - unused slides names are in normal. 2) Try using the "Fullscreen view of Slide List" to sort images. DaveG

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

With respect Ken, that doesn't answer the question posed here. CAN 5.6 be used for basic shows as a replacement for 4.49 / 5.5 or is there something (in basic mode) which requires more "engine power" to do the SIMPLE tasks? Forget about the complexities of the added features and the unintuitive interface for a moment (I don't necessarily agree with the unintuitive bit but........). DaveG

Without disagreeing with ANYTHING that has been said could I perhaps pose Eric's question / query / problem in a slightly different way? Is there any difference between using 5.6 and using 5.5 (or even 4.49) IF none of the bells and whistles of 5.6 (basic operation) are used and would the 5.6 version run any slower on any given machine? Having a machine which copes with all/most of what you throw at it puts you in a position where you are not able to tell just where the line is drawn. I would suggest that the "line" is different for each and every one of us. It does not seem to be a level playing field. It comes back to a recent question which, to my mind, was not answered in full: Will 5.6 suit all levels of experience (and hardware if used in BASIC mode) or is there a case for keeping 4.49 and/or 5.5? DaveG

I recently invited all to participate in creating something of this nature - no takers! DaveG

Hi Eric, "If someone would come up with a short test show using the features of the latest version of PTE, as requested months ago, this would eliminate some of the problems people have when up-grading". I have come to believe that having someone else to do this and then trying it on your own machine is meaningless. I honestly believe that you have to do this for yourself using the resolution of your setup as a basic starting point. I have tried to drive my system as hard as possible and have yet to find a set of parameters which cause it problems. However, I have tried other peoples shows which did give rise for concern. Why? DaveG

Eric, Your "problem" interests me. Did you have both the laptop monitor AND the projector on at the same time? Did you try it with the laptop monitor OFF and have just the projector active? DaveG

Frankly Xaver, I don't know what Abdol is requesting. In Synch'ed mode the music should stop - it's logical. In UN-Synch'ed mode the user might be able to choose whether the music stops or continues. If that is what he is requesting then OK. I think that in UN-Synch'ed mode there is a case for the music to continue in some instances. DaveG