fh1805

Thanks Gary. If this Easter weekend continues wet, as it has been today, I might just resort to that to keep me occupied.

Which is what started this topic off in the first place! I have started to dabble in video; and had some questions for which I was seeking answers. The answers, as I have come to understand them are: - 23fps, 24fps and 23.97fps (or whatever the decimal fraction value is) are synonymous as far as the info in the Properties display is concerned - 30fps and 29.97fps (or whatever the decimal fraction value is) are synonymous as far as the info in the Properties display is concerned - 25fps is 25fps come what may The remaining question was: - In terms of the output from my Nikon D300s, which is best for PTE: the file as originally written or that same file converted (and probably deliberately trimmed by me) to some other format/size/shape/resolution/whatever? I looked around and asked around for recommendations on a suitable free video editor. I was pointed at two products: AVIDEMUX and ViewNX2. I tried both. AVIDEMUX crashed when I asked it to open a video file taken on my D300s. That behaviour ruled it out straight away. ViewNX2 will convert those same files to MOV format; BUT... there is significant loss of image quality (to me, unacceptable loss). I also tried letting PTE convert the file. Again this gave unacceptable quality. However, on thinking back over this, I was giving PTE the file output by ViewNX2. I was giving PTE poor quality and getting poor quality. I need to do a re-test giving PTE the native file from the camera to convert. However, giving PTE the original file and telling it not to convert it gives very acceptable results; so this might be the way forward for me. I will be more than happy to use PTE to do minor trims on video clips that are only a little too long for my needs. However, I still need to find a video file editor that will trim the files produced by the Nikon D300s whilst retaining the existing quality. No conversion, no frame rate change, just take the start and end frames off at the points I specify and save the remaining frames as a new file of identical specification to the original. Peter

Dave, When I wrote that I was thinking more of the individual consumer rather than a club. Organisations in the UK, certainly here in my part, tend to seek grant-aided funding for major investments such as new computers and new projectors. Peter

I now build all my new sequences to 1920x1080 because that is the way the world is going. TVs and computer monitors are now nearly all 1920x1080 native resolution. Digital projectors are moving in that direction, driven by the demands of "home cinema". As for cameras: they cannot make up their mind what aspect ratio and image size they want us to use so they give us every conceivable option. Result? Total confusion! My general advice would be to build for the largest you think you will need and let the other computer/projector combinations downsize "on the fly". I find that most hardware/software can do a reasonable job of downsizing and still retain the quality. There is one "however" however: you mentioned competitions. Presumably you want to give your sequence the very best chance of winning? Therefore you have no option but to do a complete redesign and rebuild to meet the precise demands of each competition. Or do you? Are those sizes, in fact, telling you what the spec of the projector is going to be rather than an insistence on those exact sizes. Although I do not enter competitions, I firmly believe that some of the "rules" they set, such as image size, are actually unenforceable. Once the images are locked away in the EXE file, the competition organisers have no way of knowing how big each image really is. Peter

Gary, Please confirm what EXACTLY you mean by this: the settings on both cameras or... the settings on the camera on both occasions. Which? Looking at your file names I would suspect two different cameras: possibly a D100 and some other camera. If you did use two different cameras, it is not surprising that they have different settings for their video files. Peter

Robert, I found and read that Wikipedia article, too. However, it is a pity that the camera makers do not follow the advice given there. My Nikon D300s shoots at 24fps and I cannot change that. Peter

Jean, You should get an option to use the original at the point when PTE recommends conversion. Have you tried using the original? Peter

My approach to this problem would be to take two shots of the box (lid closed and lid fully open - presumably no lid at all?). Then use Photoshop or equivalent to created from the lid closed image a PNG file that had only the lid, the rest being transparent. In PTE you would then use the PNG file set over the lid open image and animate the slide of the lid. regards, Peter

Yes, I have just given that a twirl. It worked A-OK and the quality seems to be just a wee bit better than any other way of doing it. Now all I need is some "real" video to play around with instead of the hand-held pan around the living room. (See, I don't practice what I preach, either!) Peter

Dave, Don't forget the old film-maker's advice: it's the subject that moves, not the camera! Peter

Gary/Jean, Thanks for the contributions! I now realise only too well that I have just taken the first small step onto a very long and very steep learning curve; and I suspect the journey is going to be both fun and frustrating (probably in equal measure to begin with!). Peter

And how do you square that philosophy with your oft-quoted desire to achieve the very best possible quality? If there is some kind of bug or operator error at work here, I feel I need to understand it so that I can try and achieve the best possible quality with the equipment that I have. regards, Peter

Hi Dave, The converted files are only 66% the size of the originals. D300s movie is 1280 x 720 actually, and no, I've set them to 100% in the "Size and Position" window so they are at their true pixel count size. And I've just spotted another little quirk. The options in ViewNX2 for outputting MOV files are 24fps, 25fps or 30fps. I've tried both 24 and 25 so far. The 24fps is the one giving me the problem. The 25fps plays OK even if converted. However, there's yet another quirk: the Properties tab of the 24fps MOV file shows it to be actually 23 fps!!! (The 25fps MOV shows as 25fps in its Properties tab). As Alice would have said in Wonderland: "Curiouser and curiouser!" regards, Peter

I'm experimenting with video clips for the first time. I have captured a short video (hand held) using my Nikon D300s. This uploads into the computer as an AVI file. I have trimmed the beginning and the end of this video clip using ViewNX2 software and saved the result, as a MOV file (the only file type supported for output). I have created a simple test project in PTE (black slide, the trimmed video clip, black slide). When adding the video clip, PTE suggested that I should have the file converted. I allowed this to happen and have used the resultant AVI file in the sequence. When I Preview the sequence, or play it in the mini-viewer, there is a very abrupt jump at the beginning. When I play the same AVI file in either ViewNX2 or Windows Media Player, it runs smoothly from start to end. Any thoughts as to what the problem might be? If I use the original .MOV file that ViewNX2 produced, instead of the converted AVI version that PTE produced, there is no jerkiness at all in Preview, O&A or mini-player. It would seem that the jerky playback is a direct consequence of the conversion from MOV to AVI done by PTE. regards, Peter

I'm out of ideas, sorry!

It worked on my Win7 Home Premium SP1 64-bit, using PTE v7.0.3 and Audacity v2.0.0. So, different OS and different bug-fix level of PTE. Your system is 64-bit, same as mine, I believe? Unless something has regressed between PTE 7.0.3 and 7.0.5, it looks like your problem is probably OS-related. Or, just possibly hardware-specific. Stupid question: it's not a "Num Lock"/"Caps Lock" issue is it?

It's something to do with your system; your zipped project behaves OK on my system. What version of PTE are you using? What version of Audacity are you using? Which version of Windows are you using?

There is a difference between the way you have set everything up and the way I do it. You have programmed the button to "Run Application..." and given it the full path to Audacity's executable (i.e. "C:\Program Files (x86)\Audacity\Audacity.exe"). My technique is to set up an Audacity Project (the .aup file plus the _data folder) and have these two items in the same folder as the PTE executable. I then program the button to "Run Application..." and give it Demo.aup as the target. I've just checked the sequence I have built for the NE AV Group (a demo of Audacity to be given later this year) and that allows me to use the arrow keys to go backwards or forwards upon return from Audacity to the PTE sequence. Your technique has the disadvantage of not being portable to a computer other than your own unless the Audacity code exists exactly in the same place on both systems. My technique allows that portability and doesn't depend upon the whereabouts of the actual Audacity code. regards, Peter P.S. If you try my way and it still doesn't work for you, I'd then suspect it is a consequence of your having hidden the Task Bar. I don't do that; I leave it visible when in a normal Windows application.

Eric, Having re-read your original post, I think I understand what you are wanting to achieve. You are running a demonstration evening that starts with a PTE sequence and from this sequence you then use a button to launch Audacity and do a demo using Audacity. At the end of the Audacity demo you want to return to the PTE sequence and advance to the next slide in it. Right? One question of clarification: are you running the PTE sequence as a Published executable or under PTE Preview? It may not be significant but the answer will tell me how close you to doing exactly what I do. Assuming you are running it as a native executable then, from my experience of doing this kind of build, at the point where you want to return to the PTE sequence you have two options: - close the Audacity window completely - leave the Audacity window open and use the Windows Task Bar to switch between Audacity and PTE windows If you do not have a Task Bar visible, does using the Windows key on the keyboard bring it up? My normal mode of operation in these demonstrations is to close the external application completely but the other option also works for me. regards, Peter

Do you have "Project Options...Control...Permit control of show using keyboard" ticked?

The nearest to your target solution is to have the EXE playing in Windowed mode with a Title Bar and the usual Min,Max,Close buttons. You can set the size of this window in PTE and can then drag and drop it anywhere you want on your desktop. I don't know for sure, but I suspect PTE may try and retain focus in this window. You'll have to check that out. Project Options...Screen and Slide...Mode...Windowed Mode. If you tick "Without border" you cannot then relocate the window by dragging. The alternative would be to build the entire presentation in PTE and have your particular sequence run as a Video stream in a Picture-in-Picture object. But that is way more complicated to set up - and your other material may not lend itself to inclusion in a PTE sequence. Peter

Gary, I'm not into video yet so cannot speak from personal experience. However, as I understand it, all video file formats are compressed to some degree. Therefore I suspect that if PTE converts a heavily compressed video file it might then increase in size; whilst conversion of a lightly compressed file might result in a reduction in file size. No doubt Igor will have chosen an output file format and compression level that makes the programming easier whilst preserving as much detail as he can. Peter

Lin, As I mentioned in our PM exchange, I uploaded my Rubik's Cube sequence to YouTube shortly after I completed it. The file is a 1920x1080 H264 HD Video (same as the one I provided you with via the PM exchange). Provided that you leave the YouTube playback at its default size, i.e. don't try and run it at full-screen, I think the animation comes across reasonably well. YouTube link is: regards, Peter

Lin, I've sent you a PM. Peter

Gary, This option exists to protect small images from being visually degraded by having interpolation applied to make them fit a larger display device. With this option ticked, your images will never get "upsized on the fly" to fit a larger display device. So, taking your original settings, if you tick this option and your images were built to a "Virtual size of slide" of 1280x720, they would not then fill your 1920x1080 monitor. Note also that, in this case, your original 1920x1080 images would, I think, always be downsized on the fly to shrink them to 1280x720. Peter