fh1805

Dave, As I suspect you are already aware, there are four points in time associated with each slide that are, in my phraseology, "magnetic keypoints". By this I mean that, when you are in the O&A window and click just below the timeline and in the close vicinity of one of these points, PTE "snaps to" the relevant "magnetic keypoint". The four points are: - Start of slide (= start of transition into this slide) - End of transition into this slide - Start of transition out of this slide - End of slide (= end of transition out of this slide) Obviously, when there is no following slide the last two are identical. It would appear, from what you have found, that PTE first chooses "End of slide" to snap-to. You then add another slide with an in-bound transition and PTE moves the keyframe to retain its "End of slide" position. That, to me, is acceptable behaviour (although it may not be what we might want in a particular situation). What is less acceptable is that, after you delete the last slide and then add a new, different last slide, PTE does not behave in a consistent manner. The act of deleting the last slide would seem to have caused the keyframe to now be associated with "Start of transition out". I would agree that something ain't quite right here. But I cannot say which behaviour is the right one and which is the wrong one. regards, Peter

The best advice I can give any beginner is to download and read the user guides. After that, play with the software - but don't try out all the bells and whistles all at once. Master the simple things before going on to try the more complex things. Software that offers as many features as does PTE can be difficult for a new comer to master; especially if they try out everything at once. In that respect it is no different to, say, Photoshop. regards, Peter

You don't "convert" the EXE. Instead of creating an EXE file you can use the option to "Create HD Video for PC and Mac" and PTE does it for you. regards, Peter

How exactly are you setting up the buttons you are using for your menu sequence? Some screen shots showing the settings would be very useful. regards, Peter

You cannot directly embed the EXE file onto a web page so that it will stream from there. You can have a link on the web-page that will allow the web site visitor to download the EXE to their own PC and then run it - but then that will work only for Windows PC users. For Mac users, you would need to have another link and another EXE file. Or you can produce a HD Video file from your PTE project and have the webpage set to stream that (like YouTube does). That would work for Windows, Mac and, I believe, Linux users. regards, Peter

Could we have a few more details, please? Which version of PTE are you using? Are you using Run Application or Run Slideshow to launch the next sequence? Does the target sequence EXE file launch and run correctly when you simply double-click its icon in Windows Explorer? regards, Peter

I use menus extensively but build them only as and when I need them. Each new menu is built from a previous example and takes no more than 10 minutes to customize. It then takes only a few seconds to do the Create of each target sequence. An evening's entertainment of upto one hour never needs more than 9 or 10 sequences. Total preparation time is usually under 15 minutes. To give an idea of the scale of my need for menus: between 1st September 2010 and 31st March 2011 I currently have twelve bookings to show my work to local organisations. So that will be twelve customized menus and a maximum of 120 other sequence creates. In reality that number will be much lower. PTE will go through a period of version stability at least once during the winter. Therefore, whilst it is in that stable state, I can re-use previously created exe files. I cannot see the point in regenerating all sequences as each new version of PTE is released. regards, Peter

Andrew, When PTE introduced the fancy transitions and animations, there was nobody around to tell us early users how to do it properly. We learned by trial and error, by watching other people's work and reflecting upon it. That which we liked, we emulated. That which we did not like, we avoided doing ourselves. And as Malcolm (Nikonos) has indicated in his previous reply; we applied what we had sub-consciously learned from watching films, TV programmes and TV adverts. There's a lot of rubbish out there in all three genres: but there are some real gems as well. Lessons can be learned from both the good and the bad examples. regards, Peter

Malcolm, A qualified agreement from me! For the sort of sequences that feature most often on this forum (and elsewhere), I agree. The photography is what is being showcased; and so the images must be of the highest quality. But for a documentary sequence (for example my recent posting: "The Alum Coast") where some of the imagery is of a historical nature, one has to take whatever one can find that illustrates the point being made. In such sequences it is the story that is paramount. Everything else: images, music, voice-over, sound, use of visual effects all have to be subservient to the need to move the story-telling along in a pleasing and effective manner. How many TV documentaries comprise nothing but stunningly beautiful imagery? I don't think I've seen even one that did. They have to use a mix of the stunning and the merely OK. Unfortunately there is a growing trend in TV documentaries to use weird camera angles, moving the camera whilst filming and all sorts of other gimmicks that, to me, detracts and distracts from the story-telling. This is analogous to the inappropriate use of fancy transitions and animations in AV sequences. These fancy effects do have a role to play: in the right place, at the right time, for the right reason. But that good old rule "Keep it simple" still represents very sound advice. regards, Peter

bwat, The reason that Igor and his team found for the desktop flashbacks when using menu sequences was that only one piece of software could have total contol of the graphics card. With the Run application approach there was a conflict between PTE and Windows Aero interface for this total control. This conflict gave rise to the flashbacks. The Run Slideshow feature of PTE uses a single instance of PTE run-time code to drive all the sequences. This instance of PTE, once it has total control over the graphics card, never releases it until the user ends the menu sequence. In order to ensure the proper operation of all the sequences, Igor and his team felt it was necessary to have all the sequences use the exact self-same version of PTE. Perhaps, as they develop the Mac version (using Open Systems code maybe) they may learn something new taht will give us greater flexibility in the Windows environment. Until then, I'm afraid we just have to live with it if we want to use the Run Slideshow feature. regards, Peter

Ralph, Dick and Andrew, Many thanks for your comments. I'm glad you enjoyed the show and found it interesting. regards, Peter

Barry, You, too, eh? I'm finding that any show made more than about three years ago is now no longer as acceptable as it was. The reason, for me, is that my skills have improved in all areas. Looking at each old sequence critically I can see that I would now: - compose and expose the image better in camera - use the features of Lightroom and Photoshop to achieve a better final image - use PTE features in a more subtle way to achieve a sequence free of gimmicky animations and transitions - put greater variety into the soundtrack (not just music and voice-over but sound effects as well) In short, as my skills rise so, I believe, do my standards. (I certainly hope that is the case!). But there is one aspect of my work that I still struggle to overcome: divorcing my "cherished memory" of each image from the actual image, and assessing that image solely on its technical and artistic merits. I know I have to be a harsh critic of my own work - but it isn't easy to do that. regards, Peter

Andrew, That's a wonderfully brief definition of constructive criticism. regards, Peter

I've realised that there is another factor at work, one which I had completely over-looked until earlier this morning: time! It takes time to download a sequence, time to watch it, time to think about it, time to prepare a reply. I used Ralph's Le Mans sequence to investigate this aspect of commenting on shows. It took about 2 mins to download. It took however long it runs to watch it (I didn't time that bit). It took several minutes to gather my thoughts. And, surprisingly to me, it took almost 30 minutes to key them in, proof read them, correct them, amend them, etc. to the point where I was happy to commit them and post them. All in all, probably the best part of an hour for one sequence. At that rate of progress I cannot afford to look at more than one sequence in any day and probably only two or three in a week. One hour is a huge chunk of time out of my "unallocated" hours. So here's another reason why the comments either don't come in at all or are fairly bland when they do. Folks cannot spare the time to do a thorough job. regards, Peter

Ralph, In your topic about comments on slide shows I put my cards very firmly on the table. Now let's see if I can live up to what I said... Firstly, I'm massively envious of you having such a wonderful opportunity: one that you clearly grasped with both hands. The one thing that struck me most about your sequence was the pacing of the images and their transitions. I was left with the impression that all (or almost all) the transitions were fades and all (or almost all) were of the same duration. I feel sure that this sequence could be improved by varying the durations of both slides and transitions to better match the mood and tempo of the music. To do this you need to learn to listen to the music rather than simply hear it. My way of doing this is to open the music in Audacity and then play it whilst watching the waveform. With Audacity's timeline expanded so that I can see the half-second tick marks, I then note the points at which there is special emphasis or a change of tempo, instrument, etc. These are the points at which a tightly synchronized slide change/transition will then be mandatory. Your subject matter lends itself to a greater mix of transition types. The simple fade is ideal as the start point for all sequences; and will remain the transition of choice for those who are trying to create "third images" as one slide blends into the next. But for a subject such as this there is plenty of scope for judiciously using many of the other transition types. Try some Quicks, Circle (both to and from centre), and Page wipes (top-bottom, left-right, etc). But note that I said "judiciously" - don't go overboard. I liked your use of several small images on screen at once. This helped to give variety to the sequence. But on at least one occasion I thought that the replacement image was of a slightly different size. Take care over these small points; they are important. And a great way of getting out of a "three-up" and back to full-screen is to have one of the three be just a part of the full image. Alternatively, this is a situation where a fancy transition can be useful. And finally some thoughts about the music. It was a piece that I wasn't familiar with (except that part which had been used as the theme music for TV coverage of Formula 1 Grand Prix). If it was all taken from the one piece of music then I would strongly suggest not repeating any part of it. Repeating a piece of music or repeating images can sometimes come across as padding out the sequence. I'm not suggesting that this was the case here. You mentioned that you were thinking of a possible rebuild of the sequence. This would give you an ideal opportunity to remove the repeat. Of course, that will mean a reduction in the overall length of the sequence. To reduce the sequence you will need to remove some images. And in so doing you will be taking out those which, to you, are the weakest or the ones that do not sit well alongside their neighbours. Each image that you remove will be strengthening the overall visual quality. It is a truism of AV that less is usually more. If you decide to do a re-build, I look forward to seeing it at some point in the future. Thanks for giving us this glimpse behind the scenes of Le Mans 24 hour. regards, Peter

Colin, Rick and Malcolm, Thanks for the comments. Glad you enjoyed it. Ken, Aye it had - and still has - many uses. Mickp, As the voice-over said: a lot of trial and error. To all readers of this topic: If any forum members live within easy reach of Whitby, there is an exhibition on in Whitby Museum until November about the alum industry. This AV is running as a continuous loop as part of that exhibition. Some of the stills photography on the display panels is also my work. regards, Peter

It has been a long time since I posted any sequences here. This one: http://www.mediafire.com/?ao4qfxblctc3wb4 is about 32MB in size and runs for 8m40s. It is a documentary about an industry that once existed along the north-east coast of Yorkshire. To those of you for whom English is not your native tongue, I apologise in advance; but this sequence has a voice-over in English. It forms part of a portfolio of sequences I am creating for local audiences on the theme: Heritage of the North. Comments are always welcome. regards, Peter

I guess that is a possibility. But my tests have proven that WMA is a supported file format (which I didn't know!), so if it is corrupted in some way, it's having a very strange effect. Definitely one to leave to Igor and the Wizards of WnSoft to resolve. I'm out of this one. regards, Peter

Gary, All three options that I gave in my post above are equally intuitive. The one that is intuitive to you may not be intuitive to someone else - but one of the other two might be intuitive to that person. regards, Peter

Dave, I've just studied Roel's screengrabs and tried to reproduce the problem - and can't. Roel, If all you want is two pieces of music palying one after the other you do not need a second track. In fact the second track will simply get in the way. The two tracks play in parallel - at the same time. What you want to do, I suspect, is to add a second piece of music to the first track. But, of course, this also may give you the problem. regards, Peter

Ralph/Dave, I think there are at least two separate aspects of this subject area. Firstly, as one who is a respected and much requested judge among the local camera clubs, I know from my own experience just how hard it can be to give bad news in a constructive manner. Explaining what is wrong with an image or sequence in a way that sounds positive is a hugely difficult challenge. Secondly, everyone who puts their work up for comment is laying themselves open to a big disappointment. They have poured their soul into that work. To them it is the best thing since sliced bread. But to those who are more advanced in their skills or have a different perspective of the world, it could come across as boring, mundane, lacking in finesse or whatever. To put your own work up for judgement by others, you must have a thick skin yourself. Not everyone does. I know of two member of my own club who no longer submit work into the comeptitions because their work fell foul of an "assassin" of a judge who couldn't say anything good about any work. Needless to say that judge has never been invited back - but the damage was done for those two members. And on a forum such as this we must carry a third aspect in mind at all times: the potential difficulties caused by using English as the forum language. For many of our members English is not their native tongue (for all I know it might even be a second language for Dave if he is a Welsh-speaker). The problem that I have observed numerous times is that caused by an English-speaker using a particular idiom that then does not translate quite the same into a foreign language. And this problem then gets compounded when the foreign language reply is translated into English. We must all of us practice tolerance, patience and kindness in our dealings with one another on this and any other forum. And if anyone finds themselves wanting to comment about a sequence and the comment is about something that you feel is wrong - don't say that it's wrong. Instead, explain how you would have done it differently. regards, Peter

Gary, It would. Unfortunately that isn't how it works. When you click on that button that says "Set for existing slides" it means exactly that - ALL of them! I sort of agree with you. But thinking about your specific example there are at least three possible actions: - reduce all images to 80% irrespective of previous values (i.e. how PTE works now) - reduce all images except those already customized to 80% (i.e. the way you want it work) - reduce all images to 80% taking notice of existing customization and applying this new change pro rata (i.e. reducing your 121.585 to 80% of its value = 97.268) Several times I have felt that it would be useful to be able to "lock" a slide - but that then begs the question: which attributes do you want to lock? All of them? Only some of them? The ones that you want to lock might not be the ones that I want to lock. Every slide has dozens of attributes; all of a sudden the complexity is growing real fast! regards, Peter

Roel, It's best to zip your attachment, unless it is just a JPEG image file. regards, Peter

Roel, Adding attachments is a two step process. As well as clicking on the Attach files button you must then, after the forum website has uploaded them, click on the link "Add to post" over at the right hand side. regards, Peter

Igor/Dave, Having done some investigation, I think it possible that he is trying to add the music via Customise slide but has not ticked the "Play new background music..." box. Until this is ticked you cannot add music to a slide in this way. But he would probably be better off using the Project Options|Music route anyway. regards, Peter P.S. And if "he" is a "she" I apologise for my gender-biased phrasing.