Barry Beckham

Thank you for your kind words, but with regard to virus protection I have little tolerance. If your virus protection software causes more problems that it's supposed to be protecting you from, dump it and find another.

Open HERE

Only 4:3, my Canon snappy camera can do that

Add the delicate zoom to your image and create a slide style from that image. Now you can apply that to all 70 images instantly

It works fine, but try it with a slide duration of 0.1 now it has some pace

You do realise that a 16:9 AR slide show will play fine on that projector. There seems to be some myth that images must be the size of the projectors resolution, they don't. Try a test and you will see

Far from me to talk for Davegee, but what he has done here is logical. If you break the image into the pieces/slices and save that basic style without animation. Now you have it safely stored on your computer like a layered Photoshop file. Then you can apply the style to an image and add any animation you want. A staggered rotation or even like blinds for example

There is one point I could add. Unlike many who visit forums such as this, I am quite happy to admit when I don't know something or I am confused by it. i am also willing to change my mind in the face of good argument and evidence. I am willing to be convinced and have no Ego problems that would prevent me from saying I had something wrong. If you disagree, convince me of the merits. I am open to critical thinking and reason

I think I would rather the image fills the width of our screens, so for me, if push comes to shove, I guess I would go for 1920*1280

This is not an easy or simple question to answer. To some degree it almost goes back to the recent debate about how hard pressed professional photographers couldn't possibly spare the time to make a slide show at the resolution and aspect ratio that most of us are using, What's the point of structuring slide styles and CT's to 10801620 when practically all of us use something different. It makes no sense to me at all. Anyone making slide shows who cannot be bothered to get these basics right, should stop making slide shows. Because if they cannot find the drive, enthusiasm and energy to really do a good job, then there is a better than average change their slide show will reflect the same approach. OK, but nothing special. Yes, I know we don't always succeed with our quest for something special, but at least lets aim for it and not give up before we start because it may take take a little longer Having said that, 16:9 in portrait format is not good, so if a slide style or a CT was structured for portrait format images, I would still base the style/CT on 16:9, but would perhaps use 3:2 portrait format images. However, that brings us back to what you suggested a long while back and I didn't have a view at the time, but do now. Slide Styles at least need some way to leave instruction notes for the user. Possible CT's too The other thing I would say is that if you want to make your slide shows at a different AR to the majority, then create your own styles, structured for your use. If your making them with the intent of offering them to the wider community, then structure them at the size most are using. Isn't this all common sense

Slide styles has reached the point where a comments section is required. Names alone don't seem quite enough now and I haven't even started on my 5:4 versions :-)

The Strips is a neat idea

Experimental and one or two that may give you a headache

Slide Style experiments with masks

I think that demo and style set was the one I made where the slide styles need to be applied in order, that way they join with the next one a bit better

PTE-9 Demo Triptych Multiple Images and Styles

PTE-9 Just more demos and styles to give me a project. Some use masks, some modifiers. The folder link contains a PC and Mac demo and the slide styles Stripes

Through the initial testing of PicturesToExe 9 I have created a number of slide styles while trying out the software. They are not final slick versions, just my playthings and something to give me a project. Some use masks, some modifiers. The folder link contains a PC and Mac demo and the slide styles Frames and Folds

Isn't this that age old debate, how far does a slide show program move towards being an image editing program? If you add text, then people like me want text styles, bevels, outlines. if you use graduated or solid backgrounds, I then want some control of texture noise etc Masks are easy and quick to make in Photoshop,Elements in almost any configuration and shape you want

Have you been back to Iceland for another trip, or are these other images you shot on your last visit?

why cant the professional just hit control D and slap all his images into whatever size output he chooses. Yes he will have black at the sides but Lin is happy to accept that Of course the wedding photographer making a slide show could do that, but this debate is not about what Lin or I personally like. Its clear that Lin, probably others too, would accept exactly what you suggest. All I am saying is that I doubt that the majority of those employing a wedding photographer with what they charge would accept 5:4 in a 16:9 world. I think we are far enough into 16:9 for the customer to expect that. Am I unique when I flick channels on TV these days and find something that sounds interesting and it pops up on screen in the old TV format. Almost square like 5:4. The first thing through my mind is wow, this must be quite old. Rightly or wrongly it is immediately dated. If I were to be a wedding photographer I would want first to try and provide something that the competition doesn't and if I couldn't do that, do it better. I just think any thought of a 5:4 slide show for a customer now is like throwing in the towel. And on top of all that, its easy to achieve with PTE. It's not a long job

I think we have to agree to differ, big time. No change there then. :-)

I'm not done yet Re professional wedding photographer - Do you really think he is going to crop 200 images to show the client in the slideshow from 3:2 or 4:5 or 4:3 or whichever aspect ratio the show was shot at to 16:9 for the show? That takes way too much time for which he will not be reimbursed and the images in the show won't match the images he delivers to his client in their normal format for printing. Point 1. My Canon SLR shoots video - Its 16:9 My Snappy camera shoots video - Its 16:9 YouTube videos are - 16:9 My PC screens are - 16:9 My laptop is 16:9 My TV is 16:9 PTE defaults now to 16:9 Anyone buying a PC projector of home cinema - 16:9 Yet your suggesting a professional would create a 5:4 slide show for the customer? and you call this person professional? Point 2. If the "Professional" is not going to be reimbursed for the slide show, then don't make one. Don't bleat about how hard pressed for time you are. Either produce a good product or not, but I am the customer and don't give a toss how pushed for time you are. Point 3. There is no need to crop 200 images because with a bit of pre-planning, use of a template and PTE slide styles you can use the 3:2 images from the camera in a 16:9 project. I know this because I have done it Point 4. In Lightroom or Photoshop you can batch process 200 images from high resolution from a typical SLR to 1920*1280 in under 5 minutes automatically. In Photoshop its the image processor. I did 870 images in 15 minutes. Just walk away and make your coffee while its doing it. Point 5. If you did decide to crop 200 images manually it takes about 10 minutes. Open 20 at a time and by using a preset crop in Photoshop, apply it - commit the crop and then saving the image and removing the image from screen ready for the next one. A simple action will do this, one minute to set up and once done its done. It took me around a minute to do 20 images so 10 minutes for the 200, but lets say 20 minutes even. No time at all and if the "Professional" cannot spare that time, they are in the wrong profession Point 5. The stressed Professional, being so hard pressed for time he delivers a 5:4 slide show to the client. The family all sit down in front of the large flat screen TV to watch this and see almost square images covering only a fraction of their screen. Professional? Give me a break . Soon to be unemployed if you ask me

Lin OK, your right. Long live 5:4 I now understand why its so popular. If only I had seen one in the past 5 years

I wonder if you have the wrong end of the stick here, because I am not referring to the shooting of images. I shoot at 3:2 format with my SLR and Infra-Red cameras and with my snappy I use 4:3 because its the largest pixel size. Its not the shooting of images that I care a toss about. I don't have 42 cameras, but wouldn't know what to do with them all if I did. This is an AV forum, so prints don't come into the argument. I just don't think it makes any sense to make a 5:4 slide show when every screen its likely to be viewed on is 16:9. The default of PTE-9 now reflects that too. If you want to use 5:4 go ahead, but I reserve the right to view slide shows at that format as dated. Yes, of course I am biased by my own experiences, aren't we all? And I have a fair bit of experience !!