Lin Evans

Jeff - are you talking about an upload to Slideshow Club or to the forum?? Best regards, Lin

After Dave's Example for 16:9 - This is a very similar horizontal Strips Rotate style for 3:2 Aspect Ratio Images. You can adjust the size of the images with the controlling frame. Select two (four, six, eight, etc.) 3:2 aspect ratio images and apply style.. This for Version 9 and later only. It won't work with version 8. Put image you want to begin in second position... Exe demo with four 2650 x 1767 images (sugested size) http://www.lin-evans.org/demo/rotatestripdemo.zip Lin SlatRotate For 3_2 Images.ptestyle

LOL Romma, You are replying to a ten year old post.... Best regards. Lin

Hi Lou, If you could zip up your project and give me a link, I will try to sort it out and see what might be causing the problem. If you don't have a server or website you could use dropbox or mediafire or one of the services to upload the zipped project. Best regards, Lin

No time this morning - maybe later this afternoon... Best regards, Lin

Here's one (a 20 strip horizontal) I just created for 3:2 images - it "should" work with any 3:2 image regardless of size: Lin Strips20 for 3_2 Aspect Ratio Images.ptestyle

Hi Dave, Yes, that seems to work correctly. The 1080 vertical is necessary to make the vertical height work without compression.. Best regards, Lin

Sure - I'll make some and post them in 3:2 and 4:3 - probably not enough interest in 5:4 to spend the time.. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, Primarily I use 3:2 because all of my dSLR's except my Olympus 4:3 shoot as default in 3:2 aspect ratio and I don't like cropping. My consumer cameras almost all default to 4:3. If I'm doing portraits with my pro-body Nikon's I shoot in 5:4 so my clients don't have to crop for an 8x10 frame. I think 5:4 is best for portraits and I like 3:2 for landscapes. It's inconvenient, but I generally name my styles with aspect ratio included in the file name.. Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, What aspect ratio did you set these styles for? They distort the image vertically??? Best regards, Lin

Hi Lou, Did you try making an MP4 rather than an AVI to see if the audio was different? Best regards, Lin

Hi Lou, Let's wait for Igor to answer - he's in the midst of heavy beta development on verision 9 so it may take a while. I'm unsure why your preview and your AVI should be any different. It does appear that you are using the basic version. Perhaps you could instead try creating an MP4 h.264 version and see if it is any different? Best regards, Lin

Hi Lou, The current Deluxe version of PTE has a waveform audio envelope which lets you manipulate the audio track or tracks with complete control over start time (into the audio track itself) offset (when on the timeline it actually begins in relation to the show), volume range including complete cut-off of audio, etc. The Deluxe version also lets you control the audio of any video clip by first muting the video sound then converting the video sound to an mp3 and manipulating it as if it were an external audio track. Before this was all available, about the only way to control your audio track was to use an external audio editor such as Audacity to make the changes as desired at the precise time in correlation with your images then load that audio in synchronization with the image track. I'm not certain why your PTE file if the Deluxe version of 7.5 is telling you that deluxe features are not available except that apparently the software "thinks" you are not running the deluxe version. Did you reinstall or uninstall and reinstall recently and are you using the same unlock key that you used when you purchased the Deluxe version? Probably an email to Igor would be helpful because normally your AVI created should have the same audio as the preview... perhaps when Igor reads this he can help determine where the problem lies... Best regards, Lin

I'm not done yet Re professional wedding photographer - Do you really think he is going to crop 200 images to show the client in the slideshow from 3:2 or 4:5 or 4:3 or whichever aspect ratio the show was shot at to 16:9 for the show? That takes way too much time for which he will not be reimbursed and the images in the show won't match the images he delivers to his client in their normal format for printing. Point 1. My Canon SLR shoots video - Its 16:9 My Snappy camera shoots video - Its 16:9 YouTube videos are - 16:9 YouTube uses 16:9 players but will play your video at the aspect ratio you upload... My PC screens are - 16:9 So? My PC Screens are 4:3, 5:4, and 16:10 My laptop is 16:9 I have three laptops, none of which are 16:9 My TV is 16:9 My TV is 16:10 PTE defaults now to 16:9 So, ever heard of templates? My copy of PTE 9.0 beta defaults to 3:2 Anyone buying a PC projector of home cinema - 16:9 Yet your suggesting a professional would create a 5:4 slide show for the customer? and you call this person professional? Yes, as well as 4:3 and 3:2 - I'm not "suggesting" that, I'm telling you that's what my professional photographer friends as well as myself, who has worked as a professional photographer for many, many years does. Point 2. If the "Professional" is not going to be reimbursed for the slide show, then don't make one. Don't bleat about how hard pressed for time you are. Either produce a good product or not, but I am the customer and don't give a toss how pushed for time you are. Read more carefully Barry. I said the Professional is not going to be reimbursed for the additional time it would take to change the aspect ratio of a couple hundred 3:2 images to 16:9 for the slideshow, especially since they now will not match the aspect ratio of delivered images to the client which were categorically NOT shot in 16:9 aspect ratio. Point 3. There is no need to crop 200 images because with a bit of pre-planning, use of a template and PTE slide styles you can use the 3:2 images from the camera in a 16:9 project. I know this because I have done it The images will NOT appear as they do when delivered to the client at the original aspect ratio whether you use one or a thousand "templates" unless you're talking about greatly reducing the size of a 3:2 image and displaying it with other "gingerbread": or multiple images displayed simultaneously. If that's your show style, go for it. My clients are not interested it that type of BS just to present a "fill the screen" image at 16:9 aspect ratio. Point 4. In Lightroom or Photoshop you can batch process 200 images from high resolution from a typical SLR to 1920*1280 in under 5 minutes automatically. In Photoshop its the image processor. I did 870 images in 15 minutes. Just walk away and make your coffee while its doing it. If that's your idea of a "professional" show then go for it. A professional who does his cropping the way he intends the image to look when he composes has no interest in some automatic batch prossing algorithm which has no way of knowing where an image is to be cropped for best results of the subject as the photographer framed the shot. What the client then gets, as I've said before, is NOT what they will get from the original images as delivered by the photographer. How many 16:9 images have you printed Barry? How did that work out for you? 16:9 aspect ratio is a compromise to the video industry. I don't know a single professional who shoots at 16:9 unless it's video. Point 5. If you did decide to crop 200 images manually it takes about 10 minutes. Open 20 at a time and by using a preset crop in Photoshop, apply it - commit the crop and then saving the image and removing the image from screen ready for the next one. A simple action will do this, one minute to set up and once done its done. It took me around a minute to do 20 images so 10 minutes for the 200, but lets say 20 minutes even. No time at all and if the "Professional" cannot spare that time, they are in the wrong profession. You seem to miss the point that we are not interested in cropping the original image - it's already composed exactly as desired. 16:9 is a video aspect ratio. Not a single professional camera uses it for anything else, period. On the other hand, all Nikon professional cameras have a 5:4 aspect ratio available for the professional. Perhaps you should write to them and explain why YOU don't think it's professional to use that aspect ratio. You can perhaps persuade them with your vast marketing experience of professional body cameras to the professional photography market. By the way just in case you are not aware - SQUARE is a popular format among professionals - it's found on many MF professional backs... The stressed Professional, being so hard pressed for time he delivers a 5:4 slide show to the client. The family all sit down in front of the large flat screen TV to watch this and see almost square images covering only a fraction of their screen. Professional? Give me a break . Soon to be unemployed if you ask me Soon to be unemployed? Really? Nobody asked you and if you don't like 5:4 don't use it. Nobody really cares whether you like it or not Barry, is that so difficult for you to understand?

Hi Jeff, No "border" is necessary to use the new feature. Just place an image in the slide list. Go to O & A and zoom and position it where you like on the screen. Add a keyframe somewhere later on the timeline then place a checkmark in the "Framing" and change the X Y and Z parameters to adjust zoom and position. Best regards, Lin

Dave, You're missing my point. Your point is predicated on "filling the screen." My point is that "filling the screen is irrelevant." With someone displaying their "show" to a club or in a competition, you are correct. My point is that the vast majority of "shows" made by photographers using PTE will be "displayed" at the aspect ratio of the image (the project aspect ratio will be identical to the photo aspect ratio) and whether or not it "fills the screen" is totally irrelevant. The majority of shows will not be displayed on a projector or on a TV but displayed on home computer systems with numerous different aspect ratios. When you go to a movie at a theater, the "screen" may or may not be filled by the aspect ratio of the movie being shown. Nobody asks for a refund if the screen isn't filled. Where I live it often is not. Now back to your original question. Those who shoot in 5:4 will, in all probability, create their shows in a 5:4 aspect ratio and there are a reasonable number of professionals who shoot at 5:4 so they can compose as they want the final image to look during the shoot rather than crop later. So whether to create "styles" at 5:4 is a decision only the user of PTE can decide based on his or her expected audience. It's obvious we all have our own opinions on this most probably based on our own experiences... I think we've about exhausted the realm of those points - LOL Best regards, Lin

Let me give you an example of why professional photographers making a show for a client are not about to make it in 16:9 format. Let's say the show is being created by a wedding photographer who has just finished carefully editing, batching, whatever about 800 pictures of which he will use about 200 of in the client's slideshow. Do you really think he is going to crop 200 images to show the client in the slideshow from 3:2 or 4:5 or 4:3 or whichever aspect ratio the show was shot at to 16:9 for the show? That takes way too much time for which he will not be reimbursed and the images in the show won't match the images he delivers to his client in their normal format for printing. Likewise for an event photographer who is making a show which consists of perhaps 800 images which may well be being shown live at the event while the event is still going? The ability to do this is already possible with the competition and Igor is planning to include it as a PTE feature. The only people who are going to crop the output from the capture resolution to 16:9 are perhaps photographers who are preparing a show for a presentation at a competition, or perhaps in some locations at a camera club assuming that they will be presented on a projector. That represents a tiny proportion of PTE users today and perhaps even a smaller proportion of them in the future. The vast majority of people who will eventually buy this product will not be professional AVI workers - actually, the vast majority of present PTE owners and users are not AVI workers or people who have any interest in competition or displaying the shows via a projector. Large screen television and large displays are less expensive than projectors and produce much higher resolutions. Most users regardless of the fact that they may have a 16:9 display at home will not be cropping the thousands of captures made at other aspect ratios to 16:9. It simply takes too long and they won't do it even though the new PTE features allow non destructive cropping within the show. They will set the aspect ratio to the aspect ratio of their captures and not be concerned whether or not there is a black border. That's the reality. Best regards, Lin

LOL Barry - It wouldn't take too many 5:4 slideshow shooters to overwhelm Slideshow Club since there are only about 66 people who have posted shows there.... I doubt that any authors who use 5:4 aspect ratio are in any way "depressed" by the "16:9" world... Actually, I think perhaps you are a bit delusional about the number of photographers who really care anything at all about 16:9. Of the hundred or so professionals I'm personally acquainted with, actually zero care much at all about 16:9 - the majority shoot 3:2 or 4:3, unless they are using their MF digital backs, and the vast majority of consumer digital cameras shoot 4:3 as the default. About the only time any of them use 16:9 is for video. I have 42 digital cameras ranging from professional Canon, Nikon and Olympus models to prosumer and consumer models representing Nikon, Canon, Olympus, Sigma, Pentax, Sony, Fuji, Casio, Epson, Meade, Kodak, Hewlett-Packard, Leica, and even a Nokia 808 41 mp phone camera. Guess what? Not a single one of them shoot 16:9 as a default. Considering the fact that there are thousands of PTE users and only about 66 are represented on Slideshow Club and only a few dozen frequent the forum here except right around the time a new version is being released perhaps your assumptions might be a bit biased by your own experience? Best regards, Lin

Just a quick fun style which does what's indicated in the little video below - just choose any 3:2 image and apply style. You can also apply it to any video... If you want to completely hide the blurred background, just click on the last keyframe for the rotated child image and drag it a bit larger to fill the screen. Lin circlescreenproject2.mp4 360 Rotate for 3_2.ptestyle

Barry, the point is that plenty of professional photographers shoot in 5:4 aspect ratio. Nikon professional cameras all come with that option. To make a slideshow in another aspect ratio with their 5:4 aspect ratio images means they would have to alter them. This forum and those few who have responded are far from a representative sample of all peole who use presentation slideshow products. Although you may consider this an AV forum, I suspect many still believe it's a PicturesToExe software forum. PicturesToExe is used by thousands - some for AV in the generally accepted sense and many for slideshows which have absolutely zero to do with projectors and such. In fact, the majority of PTE users have probably never used a projector to display their slideshows. Most professional photographers create shows for their clients who may indeed have 16:9 aspect ratio displays but also may have 4:3, 5:4, 16:10, etc. Since the reason for Dave's question was not originally revealed I simply pointed out that 5:4 is still very much alive. Although 16:9 is very popular, there are plenty of 16:10 displays and the latest trend in high resolution is 256:135 which conforms to Digital Cinema Initiatives 4K. I use 4:3, 16:10 and 5:4 displays myself. The display industry frequently (every few years) changes their manufacturing aspect ratio trends probably to convince people to purchase new displays. My guess is that they will probably eventually produce 3:2 aspect ratio displays because it's by far the most common in professional dSLR's. It has always seemed odd to me that 16:9 was chosen for displays which is attempting to drive the digital camera market to produce that aspect ratio when there are zero 16:9 sensors being produced. I agree that there is probably not much of a market for 5:4 styles, but it might be wise to do some serious industry research before making the decision chisled in stone. Once styles begin selling, then if there are requests for 5:4 styles the decision could be revisited. Best regards, Lin

Do you make prints Barry? Do you have framed pictures? If you think 5:4 is dead, perhaps you could convince all the manufacturers of 8x10 frames not to bother any more? And maybe you could tell the millions of owners of Olympus 4:3 cameras that their euipment is "bad enough" LOL Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, It's a menu choice on the D300(S), D800(X) cameras to shoot in 5:4 aspect ratio rather than 3:2, etc. Shooting in 5:4 means the framing is correct for an 8x10 print without having to decide what to crop. It was convenient to just set the aspect ratio in PTE to 5:4 and drop in images without concern for borders or crops... Best regards, Lin

Hi Dave, I used to use it quite a bit with my D300S and I would probably use it if I had a D810, etc., because it works out perfectly for framing 8x10's without having to crop. Best regards, Lin

Hi Susan, Check your Facebook Messages - If you don't find my message in the regular messages section, check "other" messages. Sometimes when messages are sent via Facebook and the sender is not a Facebook friend, they go to the "other" folder.. Best regards, Lin

Really nice one Dave !! Best regards, Lin