Barry Beckham

You can do all you have decribed with PicturesToExe, but you will need to use a sound editor for some of what you ask. Joining musiv tracks and adding commentary for example. DVD quality is now very good and will meet the needs of most viewers. There are tutorials available on this forum and also video tutorials here http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/digitalav/pte5.htm If your going to need DVD's for TV viewing, why not make your basic slide show at HD resolutions 1920*1080. That file size will convert very well to modern flat screen TV's and you will have a slide show resolution that you could use in HD as and when the oppotunity arises. It will also play back OK on modern flat screen PC's too

I don't actually want to use the effect you have created, I just looked at it out of curiousity and thought I would let you know that I am unable to see it at its best. I think your animated work is very good, but it is not really my style of AV. I don't believe I have any issues with my PC and yesterday I was working on 16 bit multi layered image files approaching 500 meg and had no problems at all. The machine plays everything else and works fine. Don't worry about it, it was just a bit of info I thought you would want to know. In fact it is issues like this that makes me sympathetic to software manufacturers who have to battle the same issues.

Both these last demos react exactly the same here. Quite a bad flicker/pulse that would make the template unusable for me.

Yes, my resolution is 1920*1200

The stutter is on every image using Vista business I am running a large monitor 27in Dell

Dom This is good work, but the transition as each image appears flickers quite a lot on my PC. It's probably better described as a pulsed effect. It looks as though too much is going on for my PC to cope with the transition. A Quad Core 2.66Ghz 4 Gig of Ram Nvidia Gforce 8600GT graphics It runs everything else OK

This is a very clever slide show and extremely well done of it's type. I find I am impressed with the skills of the author, but not inspired by the work. Sadly I think I am a bit too old to appreciate it as I do find myself attracted to the more traditional AV approach. It great, but it doesn't inspire me to want to have a go and inspiration is vital. Just as I was about to close this thread when it came to me what this reminds me of. Graffiti, It attracts my attention, I do have some respect for the authors, but then nothing afterwards.

Yes, that sounds positive, it's a funny thing but I was talking to a few clubs here in Australia about trying to find a wall to project onto so we can get a much better sized picture. I recall doing a demo at the Maltings in Ely Cambridgeshire and using their cinema screen to project onto. It was an enormous image and one thing that impressed me at the time was the clarity and brightness of that image. HD does seem to be the way that was my original first thought, but some doubts crept in after talking to Epson. Your right Ken, we always assume we are talking to someone who understands our needs and our questions. Perhaps not

Thanks I am beginning to think that the person I spoke at Epson misunderstood my needs.

Nothing specific, but interested in results and a little confused by Epson saying they were not designed to be transported. I wonder if I was talking to someone who didn't really know and was simply passing on what they have been told and it is the size of the unit that they were on about and not that it is delicate

This thread seems to be loosing it's waya bit. Can I assume that no PTE experts are yet using a HD projector for their slide shows? I and others would be interested in any real projects that have been made and projected on HD projectors I am not entirely sure which way to jump and a discussion often opens up things you never thought of..............

I still have to buy a colour monkey calibration tool for my own monitors, but I don't think they are too far off the right colour. I have been looking again at the HD projectors and may try for one of those.

I tried the new startup window and I went in and customised the startup and the help screen no problem. However, when the show is previewed the startup window appears as you would expect, but the sound of my slide show continues while the startup remains on screen. Then, if I select play, the slide show plays from the start, but begins hidden behind the PTE main screen. You can hear it but not see it and it has to be revealed from the windows bottom bar If I hit the help button while the startup screen in displayed, the music of the slide show is then paused.

I suspect this is a recourse issue, but try slowing down your pan and you may find things then become far smoother. Although you say you don't wish to change the animation 20 seconds is a long time to be panning an image IMHO. So, slowing the movement may be a win win situation....Just a thought

DaveG I don't connect my monitors with HDMI because my PC's do not have a HDMI connection and I rarely use a laptop to demonstrate with. At some stage I suppose I will, but for now I don't. Downsizing an image doesn't seem to be such an issue as upsizing and I don't have a problem with what it shows on screen. My initial thought was that I wanted nothing less than 1920*1080, but I have been informed by Epson that the HD projectors are not as robust as others and are designed for home cimemas rather than for portable use.

Yaughtsman Yes, I agree with that. I am hoping that a new projector will be donated to me, so cost isn't an issue. What is an issue is quality and the 2000:1 contrast ratio of the newer projectors against my current 400:1 is what I hope will give increased quality of the projected image. From what I have seen so far in Australia, the quality of projectors used by clubs isn't good. As soon as I saw the Noosa Photo Club one in action I kept trying to sharpen the image, it was softer than I was used to. Another I saw was so bad I would submit any images to be projected by it. What about the widescreen format though?

Image Size I recently pondered the question of what size slide show do I make and why. I wasn’t asking the question because I didn’t know the answer, but because I was keen to hear the views of the more experienced PTE users. Many of the size/format/animation issues we used to have to grapple with have largely been sorted by Igor and his team, so the goal posts had moved quite a bit Over the past months I have been replacing some of my older PTE tutorial disks. This involves recording new video tutorials and making PTE demos to go with those videos. Before I started I had to settle on a size for the PTE demos I would make. I wanted them to display well on all monitors and have a good shelf life too. I.e. they were big enough not to be left behind very quickly. Its only when you see a slide show played on a 1920*1200 monitor and then one at 1024*768 played on the same monitor that the difference hits you. Size isn’t everything of course, but all else being equal the larger size look impressive. I eventually chose to make the demos at 1920*1200 to match my main Dell monitor running that same resolution. I have tested the demos on a PC that is approaching 2 years old, it is a Quad core 2.66 GHz with 4 gig of ram and a Nvidia Gforce 8600GT graphics card. These PTE demos have involved quite a bit of animation and I have been delighted with the results, smooth animations and faultless transitions. What I also like is that the shows play back very well on my very old single core PC running 1024*768 resolution. I have a black band top and bottom due to the format mismatch, but a thin line seems to hold that in nicely. The quality of the images in the demo slide shows remains great and the animations are nearly all handled well. There is a small stutter on an isolated few, but given the age and spec of the machine, not surprising. In summary I am finding that the 1920*1200 is a great size to work with, easily converted to HD format of 1920*1080 for DVD’s and all those issues I am fussy about are handled great. PC Projector Now I am in the market for a better projector, which I would be using to demonstrate both Photoshop and PTE, including the playing of the demos made at 16:10 format. I have settled on either the Epson 1725 or 1735. The 1725 remains with 4:3 format while the 1735 is capable of 16:10. Now, the 16:10 format would match my monitor and those of many of my audience. It will match nearly all laptops and screens now sold and better reflect the image format we get from our cameras. (I believe the 1735 will also handle 4:3 as well as 16:10) Who would like to bat around the pros and cons if my logic for a while?

Colin New Zealand is on our places to visit, probably 2010 now as we have plenty to do for the rest of this year. I would be delighted to do a few demos while over there and we will keep you in mind. I have an all day PTE demo at Redlands CC in Brisbane next week, that should be fun B

Ralph Not sure whay I used that Cricket thing, I am definately not a fan. Cricket bores me to death so all the scores and who beat who goes right over my head. Last month I tried to get my new club invoved into AV. I created a disk for them, with the trial version of PTE and spent some time demonstrating the process. The brief was to produce a simple show using the 10 images usable in the trial software. My thoughts were that as soon as they got into PTE it would gather pace. We got about 10 sequences, but all the usual traps were fallen into. One brought the project file instead of the exe, another managed to create an avi that wouldn't run on the night for some reason, but I took them all home and in the end all the sequences are now watchable and we will come up with a prize for the next meeting when we announce the winners I think I should be called Father Barry, touring the world preaching about PTE

Igor Thats all looking pretty good. Barry

Daveg I don't know if it was a print competition too, just projected, but I lost interest when I heard that nonsense. Ed Here is my take on all of this. These rules and regulations are another battle in someones demented war on digital photography. I don't want to/can't be bothered to learn any Photoshop work so you shouldn't either is their way of viewing the world. Have you noticed how much they talk about not needing to know anything about Photoshop? If they don't need to use it, then shut up about it and concentrate on producing some decent photography. Why do they feel the need to continually justify not using any afterwork. Your absolutely right about "urinating into the wind" but if we stand together perhaps the stream will start to push them back I am getting sick and tired of this nonsense and those who utter it. They may as well hang a sign around their necks which reads. Mediocre Photographer at work who can't be bothered.

Jfa Yes, it's Alien Skin Snap Art and I am quite happy with the effects it gives and there are loads of sliders and options that should keep me busy for ages. To be honest there are so many of these filter programs around that if your not careful you can almost give over your life to trying them all. The thing with filters in my view is that you rarely get a result straight out of the box and if you do, so do a 10,000 other people and our images then all look the same. I think the trick is just a little work with the filters of your choice and Photoshop/Elements. After all any filter will have a different effect depending on the resolution of the image used. Most of the time I use filters it is with a greatly reduced resolution because they just don't work well on high resolution images, unless your intention is a 6ft by 4ft print.

Minimum or no pan/zoom/rotate allowed. Sound and image start and end together. Minimal digital manipulation of the images. 1 entry / competition (even though there is more than one section) Submit in DVD format (not EXE ....) They do make me laugh. They say minimal image manipulation as if they could actually tell anyway. There is one other rule they should apply. Only unsharp and badly exposed images must be used. Any sign of good quality photography is NOT allowed. You can almost see some rustic group sitting round a table all with their thinking caps on coming up with the rules and seeing just how much rubbish they can cram in. The sad thing is people go along with this because they don't want to upset or offend. Well, perhaps its time we did start to offend, if that is what it takes. I have just spent 3 days at the Photographic Society of Queensland convention and heard lots of knowledgable speakers talk on a variety of subjects. It was a great event and brilliantly organised, but if I hear just one more photographer say " I like to get my photography right at the taking stage and not have to put right mistakes in Photoshop" I will poke them with a sharp stick. All my respect for them evapourates when they say that as it shows their ignorance. I heard of one competition rule the other day where digital images have to be submitted without any manipulation at all and straight from the camera. What about Raw shooters? Do they really think this is the way to quality photography and to inspire others. Either they should change their hobby or perhaps I should. I mean what rules does AV need. 1. All digital slide shows should be provided as an exe file to run on a PC projector at x resolution 2. Sequences should be no longer than 7 minutes 3. Any special software or projection equipment outside of 1 above must be supplied by the club/author Do we need much else? And here is a final thought, seeing at the film buffs tried to hold back and ban digital for so long, let us now ban them from digital AV competitions, just for spite eh

Tip Try blending a filtered version of your image with an unfiltered one. (layers in Photoshop etc) It often allows the effect to be tempered for a much better effect or tempered in isolated places.

I say old man........This just ain't Cricket What fun, keep this thread going, its better than TV Here is something amusing. I have just seen an AV competition here in Queensland and I think it took me longer to read and digest all the rules and paperwork attached to the email than it would have taken me to make the sequence.