Barry Beckham

Denwell I am a bit late to this thread as I am away from home, but could you be referring to the scattered pictures technique. It's where the images, landscape or portrait, appear as though the author is scattering them on a table top, one on top of the other.

If you're a Photoshop CC user, take a look at the motion section for video. It may have what you want.

Igor Many thanks.

I have been away from home some weeks, in fact still away and I have lost track of where we are with the Exe files for Macs. I have had some issues reported from my own club members who seem to be having trouble playing PTE Exe files on their Mac's, but they are still using PTE 8. Could I ask those who use Macs to confirm that the Exe made for Macs on a PC running PTE 9 does play on all Mac systems? I am aware of the security issues with Macs that do trip some users up, but are there any others issues?

I am well away from home or I would have some older custom transitions to test. I thought it would either be a user error from the person reporting it to me or a bug. However, when the person sent me my own CT, via email this morning, it did the same for me. Igor, is this something for you to look into?

http://www.mediafire.com/file/j9evuhd7meu3vsp/Revolver.pteeff The above is a link to a CT I made a few weeks ago. It worked perfectly OK back then, but now it will not allow me to import the transition. Any ideas gratefully received

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