Barry Beckham

Conflow No, it has nothing to do with high res cameras or Raw and my views would be the same if we were talking about a 6 million pixel camera shooting jpegs. However, I think you under-estimate how many amateur photographers have cameras that record 6 million pixels and upwards. They are not uncommon at all and 8 and 10 seem to be close to the standard in the clubs I visit. Shooting raw is irrelavent to the Moire effect, its just a chosen way of working and more and more people are choosing that option. There is a tendancy for photographers, amateur or professional to drift towards what is best. ie PTE, Photoshop, shooting raw etc. Raw gives a photographer enormous latitude to create much better quality images. Can I also clear up a little misconception. I don't consider myself as a professional photographer at all and have never been commisioned to photograph anything. I am an amateur who drifted into creating tutorials when asked at demos and lectures I gave. It all started when Digital PhotoFX asked me to write tutorials for them when the mag was launched and it has just evolved into my web site today. Yes I make a few quid at what I do now, but would not like to have to rely on this income for a living. My entire working life was in the Transport industry and photography has always been my hobby since I was in my 20's. I always wanted to retain the ability to decided what I wanted to photograph and how I did it. My original point is that as more and more photographers use higher and higher pixel value cameras, they may find the Moire effect harder and harder to defeat. The problem with not sharpening or softening the affected image (to defeat the moire effect) is that one unsharpened animated image between two static sharpened ones then stands out as soft. Now we are drifting back into image quality and images being sharp when they need to be. I am not sure I always have the answer to the Moire effect. In my recent Scotland AV I originally tried a panned animated shot made from 4 images. The finished hi-res stitch is a nice image, but I couldn't get it to pan without the Moire effect, Softening the image wasn't an option I was prepared to accept, because it then didn't look right between the other two, so the pan had to go. It was my first from a new higher resolution camera and I suspect that was one of the reasons why it caused me a problem.

Conflow Sorry, but I think you have misunderstood me and I can't agree with your summary. If your camera can capture 7 million pixels then capture them all is my advice. We can downsize from there and if the Moire effect is really unavoidable then we imply don't animate that image or I certainly don't.. For a start we don't always shoot exclusively for AV and high resolution images are not going to be possible with what you suggest. I really can't see any point in buying a camera with the capability to capture god knows how many million pixels and then only use part of the camereas capability. It's far too higher price to pay to avoid the Moire effect. For all it's downsides the Moire effect has one positive one. It should make the author ask themselves the question. What is animating this image going to do for my slide show. If it is essential to animate you will find a way, if it's not, then don't. I always shoot Raw files whether the images are for AV or not.

Let me try again here and get what I wanted to say written. There are a number of ways to avoid the Moiré effect, which generally speaking has to be avoided at all costs. It is unbelievable distracting, unless you’re lucky enough to get it on water, (which then can look like genuine movement). Here are a few ways to avoid it, apart from the other information above. 1. Don't animate - I don't mean not at all, but maybe you have chosen the wrong image to animate, perhaps one that is more susceptible to the Moiré effect than another may be. 2. Don’t make your images any bigger than they need to be for your show. Using the size toggles in the Objects and Animation screen to reduce the image size will cause or help cause the Moiré effect. 3. Avoid images with fine detail, which can also increase the effect. 4. Avoid high contrast subjects like summer leaves on a tree, which catch the light and shimmer badly. 4. Don’t sharpen the image, but this is sometimes unacceptable. (For me) 5. Try a different animation style if the one you have chosen gives problems. That sometimes helps. (I.e. from a pan left right to one up down) 6. Try the blur option in PTE5, which works most of the time, but then your image can look softer than those either side. (Assuming they are not animated too) 7. If the Moiré effect shows on a small part of your image, just locally blur that part using your image editor. The finger smudge tool is great for this. The smudged detail is too small to be seen in the image, but defeats the Moiré effect. 8. Avoid long zooms into or out of an image, the Moiré will be hard to defeat in these situations. I have also found that as the pixel count in my camera has gone up, so has the chances of seeing the moiré effect. I discovered years ago that although we reduce the size of an image to let’s say 1024*768. If we did this with the same image from two different cameras, one that captures 6 million pixels and one 14 million. The 14 million pixel camera seems to be more susceptible to the Moiré effect. (Even when resized)

Lin Ignor that last post, (now deleted) I started writing and got called away and exited the page, I had no idea it was posted, it was incomplete and as it was, it made no sense. As I often do

Dave I can't really see the point in doing that, unless I am missing something. You can produce any resolution slide show from any monitor? It looks as though the future is going to be wide screen, so our screens may be up in the 1600 pixels wide and beyond. They probably already are in some cases. To project those with a widescreen projector we will need wider screens too

Here is an interesting set of stats, only recently 1024*768 was quite a way ahead, now it's neck and neck with 1280*1024. Coming up on the rails is 1280*800. I have always felt that if you could isolate digital photographers and run this poll again, the result would be much different with 1280*1024 way out in front.

DaveG Why the two versions, well, firstly because it was easy to do with no animation in the reduced size version. Also, someone on my forum couldn't view it well, so as I had the time I made the extra version. Using Save to Zip and Photoshop's actions it didn't take long at all, but an animated show would be something else. You can't win though. I made a balloon slide show at for a 1024*768 resolution that someone said should have been made to fit the screen. Fill the screen and someone says that's wrong too. Best if I please myself and leave it at that I think Not sure what light you want me to throw really. I play slide shows created for 1280*1024 pixel monitors perfectly on my 1024*768 projector. As I said I just change the resolution of the PC to 1280*1024, just to show the slide show, then back again to continue my lecture.

Colin A projector won't resize an image will it. If you show a 1280 show through a 1024 projector it won't be right and you will lose parts of the image. You have to increase the resolution of the PC powering the projector to 1280*1024, then all is well.

Well, this is all as clear as mud. I have read loads of threads here and still can't follow the discussion. It must be all the techno speak that makes my eyes glaze over. I am probably missing something simple along the way and the one thread I did not read probably has the key. Colin How would anyone be locked out of a competition because the rules stated shows must be 1024*768? Most of the club rules are arrived at in a democratic way and if I wanted to enter a competiton, I would make a show to fit the rules. I wouldn't have a problem with that. You can show a 1280*1024 slide show on a 1024*768 PC projector, I do it all the time and you know how fussy I am about image quality. If my 1280 shows didn't come up to standard on my 1024 Epson 1710 I would soon kick them into touch.

Igor With Beta 6, I notice the little double headed arrow icon we see when we drag the transition length in the timeline has disappeared. I can still drag the transition length longer or shorter, but the icon is missing and needed I think Barry

I have now changed a few images as a result of comments. Latest and hopefuly the last version below http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/freestuffdigslidesw3.htm

Peter Don't worry, I understood where you were coming from. Barry

Peter There really isn't that much that's different here, very little animation, mostly standard fades, a little bit of work on third images, but the rest is pretty standard when you consider the technical aspects. What makes it work is the Images and how they flow together. I think some AV enthusiasts pick the running order of their images and live with that choice come what may. I don't and will rework an image to make it more suitable, or change the order or the image. The other part that is vital is that the music fits and the images are balanced with the music. Its largely the music that determines when the images change. I know some like images to be on screen longer, but that would destroy this show and it does many others too. There will always be a difference of opinion on when to end a sequence and how to do it, but I think I have a pretty good test. I put my completed show on the desktop as an exe file and I watch it again and again. Every morning while I am drinking my coffee and sometime 2-3 times during the day. If I can still sit through it myself after a week without it being too long or without an image getting on my nerves I feel I then have it right. I also take into account comments and only this morning made a very slight change.

Putting this slide show together one image at a time, chopping and changing I am cutting images from the time line all the time. All technical difficulties aside, I would like the time list to show nothing until you select a new transition.

While putting the Week in Scotland show together I also had the attached happen, although I have had this before with earlier versions of PTE5 too (well prior to 5.5). My time line shows me that I have 500 minutes of music, when in fact it's little over 8 minutes. I can't find out how to get the music showing correctly. If I open the project file in 5.1 I get the same problem. It makes the scroll bar difficult to use to find the part of the time line you actually want. Anyone else ever had this? I suspect it may be something to do with these time points being thrown up the end of the time line. When I started the project I didn't have 500 minutes of music and it sort of grew every time I added images and cut the transition points.

John Yes, I have done a download on the third image http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/downloads/PTE5/pte5.htm Dave Glad you liked it. I do try and take all my pictures as if they were for high quality printing and I know I am lucky that I can afford a great camera. It is said that a picture is made by the person behind the camera, but it does help when the equipment is really good. if you don't have a hammer you can't bang the nails in. I think the end product is 40% made at the taking stage, but 60% of the appeal can be via editing, which was what I was trying to get across in the image quality debate. It doesn't matter what level you start from, just a little effort pays dividends.

Filip I fully understand what you are trying to do here, but I have to say my first thought when I read your query was that you probably need that gap don't you. I think you need a minute or two between each show for it to flow better. Sitting through twelve shows without the ability to turn and make comment to other club members in between them, doesn't do it for me. I would appreciate just a short break. What do others think?

John I think that is pretty typical of us all to miss the opportunities in our own back yard, with the grass always greener on the other side. There are some great images a couple of miles from where I live, but we rarely go there. Too familiar, perhaps. It's always nicer to go to Scotland, the Lakes, Wales etc to get a top up of inspiration, but the dramatic weather helped us in Scotland, even if it was cold. There actually is a low volume raindrops sound playing before and during the first bagpipes sound, perhaps I have it a little too low in volume. I understand what you are saying about images being on screen longer, but what you suggest cannot be easily done. The music style, it's key changes and rythmns is what largely controls a slide change in many of the circumstances. To hold the slide longer I would have to move away from the point at which everything is telling me to change the image. Then I may have to wait too long for the next logical place in the music to change that image. I also believe that it's better to leave an image while the image is still being enjoyed, rather than the other way round. Can you listen to the start again, it may be that I have that rain sound effect set too low. I use headphones to put the show together, so I am isolated and can hear things easier. Soundtracks always sound a little different in halls and club rooms or I suppose through some PC speaker systems. LumenLux Thanks for your comments, I think I actually put my slide shows together differently to most people and that allows me to work out the third image and transitions much easier. I am also aware that some landscapes, no matter how nice the individual pictures are, they just don't go together well. For my own work I start the process one picture at a time, working them through Photoshop and seeing how slide two appears alongside slide one in PTE5. That way it's easier to spot a mismatch of horizons and that can be put right using Photoshop's layers. If you have slide one and two prepared and the transition between the two doesn't look that good, you can take them both into Photoshop to put it right. I use slide one at the resolution for the slide show (1200*798 in this case), but I then drag slide two into a layered stack at full high resolution. I don't then use the resized one I first viewed. Now, using the Transform tool the larger of the two can be re-sized to perfectly match slide one. Save the new slide two over the top of the original and then I can move on. The third image is much the same, but for every third image transition that works, 3 don't, so it takes a little time to get what I am happy with. My third image effect is created with an actual third image, what appears to be two slides changing with a nice third image, is actually three images. The middle of the three is a blend of the two either side. Layer blend modes and layer masks help to do the rest. I have often thought of putting some video tutorials together on this way of working, but I am not sure it would have much appeal as its a lot of work. In my view it is the absolute best, but the most demanding and time consuming, but then what else do I have to do.

John It seems I won't be dropping in for a beer that often then, we expect to settle around Brisbane, probably Noosa or somewhere near there. Should have the visa in July. All we have to do now is sell the house, but what a time we have picked

Spent a week in the highlands in March and the weather was cold, wet and dramatic. This slide show is best viewed on screen resolutions of 1280*1024 and it was made with PTE5 Beta 5. It doesn't end correctly as when I finished the show, PTE showed I had 800+ minutes of music?? Don't wory, it's not that long. Just hit the escape key after the end credits The slide show is the top one on the page below. Its the first public draft so to speak. I want to watch it and live with it a while to decide if that is it, or it needs some changes. I can't make up my mind whether the inclusion of some low volume bagpipes helps with the mood or not. http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/freestuffdigslidesw3.htm

Peter Yeah, I don't disagree with you and I need those technical buff's from time to time myself. However, "You can't make a silk purse out of a sows ear you say." Well...............perhaps you can these days. Well, as long as the image has something going for it and is not a complete sop. Just depends how long you want to spend doing it I recently put a challenge up on my web site for those who had an image that they felt was nearly there, but they couldn't quite gain the improvements they wanted. I then did a tutorial on the image and did what I thought it required. I tried to ensure I explained why I was doing what I was doing and then how. The idea worked very well and it gvies me subjects for tutorial DVD's. Anyone want to take advantage of the offer, read below http://www.beckhamforum.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1471

Xaver Yes, of course your right and perhaps I have been dancing around trying not to offend anyone. BUT If we just spent a little more time on the basics, many of the shows would be so much better, more watchable and more appreciated by all who view them. Its a human thing I suppose when we are faced with the marvellous software at our disposal to dip in far ahead of where you need to be. Generally speaking of course. I always find it amusing that those who are the most technical rarely produce any work. They are expert at all sorts of mind blowing stuff, but all that expertise takes so much time to learn, that it leaves no time to produce something worth while. This was the case in the darkroom and now with digital photography and AV. Of course there must be some exceptions to this observation, but they are as rare as hens teeth.

John What a great way of putting it You never did say what part of Australia your from?

It popped up twice, once on install and automatic launch, when I closed the panel, PTE closed too, I opened it again and did the same, and have not seen the message since. It only happened with Beta 5 and I have not seen this with 5.1 or any other Beta

No typo, I didn't want to be rude