Lin Evans

You don't actually have to set the "link" on the subsequent slides - just copy and paste the video fron the original slide to subsequent slides and move the layers to either place video in background or foreground. The subsequent videos will automatically be set to "link to" the master. Best regards, Lin

Error 404 means that the HTML page you are trying to access no longer exists on the server.... Erreur 404 signifie que la page HTML que vous tentez d'accéder plus existe sur le serveur ... Lin

LOL - I wouldn't bother producing any show using images at a resolution higher than about 8 megapixel (3504x2336) unless doing a very deep zoom on an image to 1:1 or greater. As for dynamic range, even though the human eye may be able to detect up to 14 stops or even more, we don't do that all at once but rather in multiple scans and over time. In a single view without the eye changing it's internal brain wired "f/stop" we can only detect about ten stops at max and today's printers can only handle less than that range. Throw in any significant animation and we begin to reach the limits of present day systems to render smoothness when we use ultra high resolution images. Even though displays may produce 8K resolution, it's mostly wasted because unless we are using huge wall sized displays as long as the pixels are smaller than the eye/brain can detect as discrete points of light we have reached the limits of visual resolution. This is why images look so good even at lower resolution on cell phone displays. The same resolution when displayed on say a 60 inch LCD might look pretty jagged. I believe we have long since reached the "practical" resolution limits of conventional photography. Higher resolution cameras are now being used to encompass more real-estate in a single capture than to render greater detail of smaller objects. The new ultra resolution spy cameras take super high resolution video with which the observer can capture a wide geographic area and zoom to a resolution of perhaps a couple inches per pixel rather than see blackheads on the human nose. There is little value in my opinion of rendering greater resolution for practical purposes than the unaided human eye can digest. When we stand face to face and talk with one another, we do not see what we would in a magnifying mirror, so why would we want this level of detail in our slides? If we do, then unless we are photographing moving subjects, we can simply take overlapping telephoto frames and stitch multiple images to allow us the option of zooming into the subject beyond what we could see with the unaided human eye from a distance of a few feet. I think in the future of photography, high resolution sensors will soon be used in holographic projection rather than super resolution 2D frames. Once we perfect sensors which work more like the Foveon rather than the much more common conventional color filter array (CFA) Bayer which interpolates color then we can eliminate the halos and chromatic aberrations which are the bane of present day digital captures and the present sensor resolution will be more than sufficient to produce razor sharp images at reasonable pixel dimensions rather than the megapixel race we have presently dominating marketing. It's exceedingly expensive to produce flawless and very large silicon wafers and because of the costs, cameras such as the 100 megapixel Sony sensor in the new Phase One back are never going to be in common production. The demands on system resources already exceed the value realized by these super high resolution systems IMHO... Best regards, Lin

Hi John, You might ask Barry - I think he may sometimes use Photoshop for video editing. If you could explain what the issue you're having with exporting "rendered" video for use in PT is, perhaps someone could be more helpful. Personally I use two freeware products (VideoPad Video Editor and AVIdemux 2,5) for my own editing. I understand that the latest versions of Photoshop CC have decent video editing capabilities but I don't use CC so can't help with any useful advice. Best regards, Lin

Hi Jeff, That's a great idea. I bought a 30" 2650x1600 resolution display a while back and the difference between it and my old display was absolutely astounding. I would imagine that the difference between my 30" and your 3840x2160 UHD TV would be just as remarkable. The only thing which has held me back from jumping into the UHD arena has been the question of how it would handle animation in terms of ghosting on movement. Hopefully, the new standards have sufficient refresh rates to take care of that. Best regards, Lin

If I understand you correctly, you would like to be able to change the layers via keyframes? In other words rather than a layer remaining as it is for the entire duration of the slide, you would like to be able to change the layer position of an object within the slide via a keyframe? Of course presently the layer position is fully adjustable in the Objects and Animations screen, but is fixed for the duration of that slide. To effectively change the layer position the slide would now require duplication. Best regards, Lin

Hi Gary, For the same reason we publish Executable files for the PC. A perfectly functioning MP4 file does not equal an Executable file on either a Mac or PC in every case because of the inability for MP4 to animate as smoothly. Executable code generally runs at 60 frames per second and at the present time, mp4 code doesn't have the same capabilities. Yes, it's possible to create 60fps mp4's but in my experience they are not equivalent for animation. The other issue is, of course, that there is no way to manually run an MP4 in executable mode. This means that lots of the things we can do in PTE with executable code (menu's, pop up text, etc.) would not be possible. People using PTE in manual modes would not be able to do so on a Mac (or PC for that matter) without the executable capabilities. Best regards, Lin

Merry Christmas to all from Lin & Honey Pup! Lin

Hi Gary, Someone's feeding you a line.... MP4's play perfectly on a Mac and the only thing necessary to play the executable is click on the zip file and chose to ignore the warning. There is no other current Apple computer other than MacIntosh. Perhaps they are trying to play it on a phone? Best regards, Lin

I think it was a rhetorical question Mick which was asked before, but not addressed in Urmas' previous post. His point, if I may attempt to address this is that there are better slideshow capabilities by far in PTE than in Lightroom, etc., It's obvious to anyone who has used both. Likewise, there are better (much better) deconvolution algorithms, better sharpening programs, better stacking programs, better RAW conversion programs, better interpolation programs, better printing programs, and better panorama programs than those available in the latest versions of Photoshop. Whether or not someone "needs" these superior features and capabilities depends entirely on that photographers individual requirements. If one is totally happy with what is available in Photoshop then there is no need to investigate further. On the other hand, not all of us are content with certain features which are offered by Photoshop so we look for suitable alternatives just as we look beyond Lightroom for presentation slideshow capabilities. What may seem obvious to some because of their needs may seem silly to others because they don't share these needs. If there were not valid reasons for using some other products then these companies would no longer be selling product because Adobe does everything - who needs anything else? We do not all agree on our approach to creating and manipulating photos or on the best way to approach it. Fortunately there are alternatives which provide sufficient latitude so that we can all be happy with our workflow. Adobe and Creative Cloud is one excellent solution but there are other quite viable alternatives which in some cases are superior... Best regards, Lin

Sorry to hear that Mark, but happy you didn't suffer a more serious attack. Nice to have you back and you and your family have a very Merry Christmas and a great New Year!! Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, I think you should realize, in case you don't, that your experience is not necessarily more relevant to "the rest of us" than someone elses. When you say "something wonderful that the rest of us haven't yet found" you appear to believe that your experience is more aligned with the masses than another's. I can assure you that there are many thousands of photographers worldwide who use, for example, Kolor's Autopano Giga, Qimage Ultimate and BenVista's AutoZoom Pro. The fact that you are apparently not aware of this speaks more to your own inexperience with these products than anything else. Urmas gave you an excellent example of the differences in the Adobe RAW converter, Canon's own DPP and Capture One Pro 8. But did you thank him? No, you "rest" your "case and throw in the towel...." Urmas' experience mirrors my own experience with these other products. When someone suggests a product on a forum they do not need to go above and beyond to demonstrate that it works better than some other product. They only need to inform the reader of the possibility and let the reader do their own research if and when there is interest. Of course some information given on forums as well as in the press, on TV and radio and in the news is "way off beam." That's life. If everyone who suggests an alternative has to go above and beyond to "prove" that it might be superior to another product for each and every person who tends to be difficult to convince they they would spend an inordinate amount of time in that pursuit. I sometimes create tutorials to demonstrate the utility and attempt to help those who are interested in learning how to use some of these alternative products myself. If others find these useful then I've done what I can to show others what I have discovered. When I endorse or recommend a product I do my utmost to be certain that I have the facts right. On the other hand, I do not have the time or energy to devote by going to great lengths in presenting detailed studies on the differences in product A and product B. If the reader is interested in pursuing that then I'm more than willing to look up references and help them on an individual basis. As I said earlier: "Different strokes for different folks".... Best regards, Lin

Hi Barry, It's really not incumbent for someone else to "direct you to a website" to convince you that there are better options for HDR, panoramas, noise reduction and super sharp images than Photoshop is able to produce. If you really want to educate yourself on this then you will seek out the answers for yourself. It's not a "contest" to see who knows more about image processing. If you are completely happy with what can be done in Photoshop, that's all that's important for you. We don't all have the same needs. For example, if you don't print larger than 24 inches or so, you will probably never see the differences in sharpness and interpolation with the best products for those manipulations such as Qimage Ultimate, BenVista's Autozoom Pro and what Photoshop offers. On the other hand, if you print as large as 60 inches as some do then the differences will be glaringly evident. If you don't make panoramas with hundreds of individual images you probably will not see the differences between Photoshop's "Automerge" and Kolor's Autopano Giga, but there are indeed mega differences. There are reasons why these other software companies are highly successful at what they do but these reasons are not always appreciated unless the user has specific needs which are not met by Adobe's products. Best regards, Lin

I think the essence of this is that "different strokes for different folks" may be the operant phrase. Obviously many, many people are quite happy with Adobe's subscription paradigm and the quite low price for Photoshop and Lightroom compared to the original purchase license prices. Are there alternatives such as the one's mentioned by Urmas which are superior to those features found in Photoshop? Of course there are. I use many of the same software packages Urmas mentioned and for good reasons. They are simply superior to those similar features found in Photoshop. Photoshop is a fantastic program and offers some amazing capabilities all in one package. For many, what is found there is all they need. For others, the superior capabilities in other software is definitely worth the investment in time and effort to learn how to use these capabilities. Choices are a good thing and we are all fortunate to be able to pick and choose among options. Each of us have different requirements and there are multiple solutions out there which work for us. There is absolutely nothing seriously wrong with the paradigm Adobe has selected for their products. The "creative cloud" makes great software available to people who could otherwise not afford to use it and it gives Adobe a steady income stream to bolster future development. Is it right for everyone in all cases? No, but that's what's great - we have choices... Lin

I doubt anyone is blaming Adobe for the actions of hackers, but large companies are often targets for cyber theft so there is an inherent risk in giving them personal information including credit card numbers and such which can result in financial loss if one's own card is compromised. I've personally been the victim of credit card fraud and have learned not to risk more than I can afford to lose. My solution is to have a small account for online transactions which I only keep minimal amounts in. I use this card for all online transactions so that any potential future losses are minimized. The other danger is in having one's name, address, telephone number and other data which can be used in identity theft schemes stored on servers. That risk also can be minimized by setting up pseudo identities which in some places is not strictly legal but are not terribly difficult to achieve while staying more or less within the legal parameters. One way to do this is by creating a small corporation to handle on-line purchases from large companies which can be targets for hackers. Then if that identify is compromised, the corporation can be dissolved and nothing personally which is really important is compromised. Lin

Hi Tom, I think Eric may not be talking about Flash security issues but rather Adobe's security issues. A couple years ago they had a huge breach of security when hackers stole personal information from their servers as explained here: http://money.cnn.com/2013/10/03/technology/security/adobe-hack/index.html?iid=EL Best regards, Lin

Hi Jean, Thanks so much and I'm looking forward to seeing your next presentation on the 24th !!! Have a great Christmas and New Year!! Best regards, Lin

http://www.lin-evans.org/pte/twominutessolitude.zip (Window PC about 14 meg download) http://www.lin-evans.org/pte/twominutessolitudemac.zip (Mac Native Exe - about 14 meg download) Lin

Hi Jeff, Thank's and the same to you guys!! We've go to do that for sure! Best regards, Lin

I missed that - Thanks Jean, Lin

PTE only use TrueType fonts. Are these new fonts possibly not TrueType? Correction: As Jean-Cyprien reminded me, PTE uses TrueType, OpenType and several other types - what type font did you add? Best regards, Lin

Hi Al, Great subtle use of this effect in numerous places - a very enjoyable sojourn through the Big Bend country! Best regards, Lin

Ken, Jim, Tom, Gogs, Al - thanks and a very Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all.... Al, great to see you back on the forum! it's been too long!! Best regards, Lin

The forum sofware is being updated to the latest version in the background. It will be about 20-24 hours until everything is working correctly again - please have patience... Lin

Hi Gary, Here's another show using that technique. There was sporadic interest in doing this many years ago but it was never really discussed much. Thanks to Dave it's revived. Jean Cyprien uses similar techniques in a number of his shows which really demonstrate the power of this as well. This is the first show I used it in - see it in the introduction after the text.... http://www.lin-evans.org/pte/rockymountainkids.zip (Windows exe) http://www.lin-evans.org/pte/rockymountainkidsmac.zip (MacIntosh exe) Lin