Barry Beckham

I am afraid that is not so clear cut as it will depend on how much you wish to Zoom. In my view many users of PTE badly overdo this and rather than add anything much to their show, they actually detract from it by allowing a zoom to go on and on an on an on. However, that is a personal view and I like my animation a little more delicate and subtle. I make my slide shows at 1920*1200 to fit my monitor and if I wanted to zoom an image I would probably add 400-500 pixels on that size making the image 2420*1600. I would use less in some cases.

Joy PC screen Resolution Go to your desktop and right click - Select Personalize with Vista, properties I think with XP - Select display settings and the screen resolution will be displayed bottom left of the Display settings window. See attached TV Screen Resolution A 52 inch plasma is likely to be full HD and that will be 1920*1080

Isn't the simplest method here to just open up the original project file (assuming it is available) and make two shows with no changes at all bar one. One show would be what is currently made, the second would be identical apart from the fixed size of slide box ticked. On the night of the projection do a quick dummy run of the first 3 slides of each sequence and guage which works best. The original one may be stretched a little and lose quality, but if it does use the fixed size of slide version and live with a slightly smaller image, or zoom the projector.

Well, we can look at this anyway we want, but the upshot is that what we see ain't what we get. When our cameras can do the same as the eye and record a different exposure in many different parts of the image, then we won't ned image editing. I wouldn't hold your breath though

Thank you Alan I intend to use it as an opening to tow demoa I will be giving in the next few months Barry

Bill You went to the right place, but what I can do today is to remake it with beta 5. Could you give it a few hours and download it again, I will put a little note on it when done to indicate what beta it was made with. NB. This is now done and you should see PTE6.5 Beta 5 on the Exposure Slide Show text on this page here http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/freestuffdigslidesw4.htm B

Thank you Henri, that news is good for the PTE team

Modern high-end laptops with dual-core processors, advanced graphics cards and 3 or 4 GB of memory are just as capable as desktop machines, and have the advantage of being portable so you are not in the position of using someone else's computer (of unknown capability) to present your shows on - or lugging your desktop machine, keyboard and monitor along. Forgive me Colin, but that is rather stating the obvious. However most laptops have black keyboards, which are a pain in the rear end while trying to demonstrate in a darkened room, especially with my eyes. The keyboards are small and don't fall to my fingers like a desktop keyboard does and to get the spec you quote is darned expensive, even more so in Australia. I am not prepared to pay that sort of money because over here you only get about $30 expenses from a Camera Club no matter how far you drive. When I do a lecture I take 4 boxes of large prints, a PC projector, keyboard, graphics tablet and all our tutorial DVD's that will be for sale, so it doesn't really matter in that scenario whether I put a laptop in or a desktop in the car, it really isn't the issue for me. I need to be confident in the equipment I am using. I have seen too many lectures that crash and burn because the kit being used is not up to the job. I don't need a screen because I demo from the PC projector so I am looking at the same picture everyone else is. Older laptops with smaller memory, slow hard drives, and single processors are less able to handle PTE shows, but PTE users would probably not attempt to use such machines anyway. Again your rather stating the obvious, but its not just PTE shows. I like to demonstrate with full size files, what I mean by that is not the little images we see on web based tutorials where everything appears to works instantly. It's not reflective of what most people will experience. So, I use full resolution files 16 Bit Raw files and I make full use of smart objects and multi-layers and my experience of laptops (even so called good ones) is not good. One layer from my camera when opened up is 120MB, add another layer and your already at 240MB. I have to have a dedicated PC to make my tutorials videos on and that is the perfect medium for me to use to demonstrate live as well. I didn't cost the earth, it's powerful enough to work on huge files and record a video at the same time and the files are all in place and ready for any live demos. It doubles up perfectly for the job I need it for. Many of the problems and issues people have, even on this forum is because the laptop they bought is just not up to the job. I suppose we could always take the view that this is their own fault for not researching things correctly, but many are not aware of laptop limitations when they first buy them. Only later do they realise what they bought is OK for emails and the odd letter, but that is about it. Its too late then, the money is spent. I realise this is a personal view, but for what I do laptops "Suck" and I fail to see what all the fascination is with them. They have their uses, but not for me, not for showing PTE shows or demonstrating Photoshop

Its one of the reasons I don't like laptops, screens too small, over priced, underpowered, awkward to use

Dan THis is a guess, but your not using images directly from your camera are you? Images for a slide show generally need to be scaled down from their original high resolution size. I have heard of this issue before and the computer copes with a few slides and then just doesn't have the power to keep going and that could be causing the problem you are seeing. Can you tell us the size of your images length in pixels and height too?

Is it just me or are you all making hard work of this. Read the Dom's answer again, he has it.

Peter, thanks for that, I wonder why Lmoreels is still having a problem? Your right about not wanting to be a software developer. I always have a smile when I hear the people ranting about Windows, expecting it to be perfect straight out of the box. It must be a nightmare just sorting out genuine bugs from user error. I don't envy Igor. He must have a very organised brain

Mac Users and following on from Igor's beta 4 release above I have just remade my tutorial slide show "Exposure" using beta 4. To do so I went back to my originally made mono soundtrack, so any Mac users who had any issues with the sound may like to test this one to ensure it now runs perfectly OK. http://www.beckhamdi...digslidesw4.htm It's at the top of the page

Bluebells in a Beach wood is like our Rainforsts out here in Australia. You need to shoot the images on a day that is not bright and sunny. Or you will never control those high lights. Not having a Mac myself I am unable to comment on the sound, but I already have some feedback that it was OK. Perhaps it was my conversion process from Mono to Stereo. A later version of PTE will probably put things right.

Davy You don't need winrar to open that slide show, its just a standard windows zip file. Right click and select extract all

Dave I avoid commentaries as I don't have the dulcet tones of a radio 2 presenter. I tend to avoid much by way of text as well,at least during an AV,but I suppose it is necessary some times. I don't think your alone there, most people don't like the sound of their own recorded voice, but its a shame to abandon the idea. I did float some thoughts about getting a group of people together who would be happy to record a commentary for others, but it went down like a lead balloon. There are times when you need a different accent from your own. Images from the States would not work so well with an English accent for example. I have some ideas for a slide show, but it would need an Australian accent. We can always ask someone else to record it for us and I did that with my "It Could be Yesterday" AV and that worked a treat. However, not many people seem to be able to make a recording of sufficient quality. I did think that the answer was in this forum, but perhaps not. Having said all that, your own voice is probably more suitable than you think

Davy Nice images, good music, but it seems to be in a documentary style, without the info. Would a little commentary set the scene here a bit.

Personally I don't think this is a big thing and there are lots of ways around it, but its darned confusing for newer users

I know exactly what Sheila refers to here. There was a time in PTE where you could take a soundtrack already in use, open it into Audactity, make your change and export it out of Audacity using the same name and PTE would pick it up straight away. In later versions that doesn't happen and you can often see the same thing with an image. If I want to change an image I often just select another, prepare it and save it with the same name as the image I want to replace. In any previews the correct image will appear, but in the thumbnails the old one will remain until you close PTE and re-open it. Its a small point and I have used Peter's method as a work around, but it was convenient the other way too.

Not being a Mac user I thought I would pass on this comment received today. I have copied it here becuase the two shows he mentions are the ones that were made with the new beta version using PTE sound, Botanical Artistry was not. Hello friends at Beckham Digitall, I was formerly a PC user but late last year changed over to all Mac and have written you several times before about your great work! Both during our PC time and then when going to Mac. I just downloaded both "Perfect Exposure" and "Everlasting Home" and both played perfectly except the audio in both is missing and thought you would appreciate the feedback about the audio problems. I immediately downloaded and played "Botanical Artistry" for a test and it played perfectly both video and audio. My system is a MacPro Quad 2.93 6GB Ram and is a late 2009 model. Thank you Regarding the above I followed Dmitry Hapilin's advice and remade both these slide shows in Beta 2. My contact then reported that the Everlasting Home slide show then worked perfectly, but the Exposure tutorial show still didn't play the sound, visual only. The sound file in the exposure show is commentary only and is a mono soundtrack, so I took that into Audition and converted it to Stereo. I remade and uploaded the show, but have not had any feedback yet that the problem has been fixed

Edd The one thing you don't say is that for the discerning customer, PSG simply does not work correctly. I tried it again myself only the other day. I took a few images from my Botanical Artistry Slide Show that PTE handles a dream and tried just 3 images from that show. Two were 1920*1200 one was larger for animation. PSG just could not handle the animation at all, so much so that it even interferred with the transitions between the animated image and the static one too. It made the simple fade transition stuttery as well as the animation. Which for me makes it unusable. It seems to me that PSG works OK for many people because it meets their needs. However, once you leave basic behind then it just doesn't do it. I wish it did, so that I could make a few tutorials using PSG, but I can't. Every time I try and make a demo to demonstrate what we are going to do, the demo is awfull and I will not put that sory of work in front of anyone with my name on it. I don't want to appear too defensive of PTE, but the debate of which is best has already been won. Most serious AV enthusiasts gravitate to PTE and the reason is pretty simple, because its the best. PSG asked me to demonstrate for them once at the National Exhibition Centre in the UK, but I just couldn't accept their invitation because I couldn't get their software to work right and it still doesn't.

Peter Yes I have been told this and that beta 2 will solve things, I will remake the two slide shows and repost them for mac users and hopefully the issue is dealt with B

Modern cameras make photography a little easier, but they cannot make the decisions for us, which was the point of the slide show. There must be a few on the forum that feel I am talking a load of twaddle (no change there then) with regard to exposure and what you see is not what you get. To those I would suggest a small experiment. Put a pad and pen in the camera bag and next time your out on a bright sunny day, make a simple sketch of the subject in front of you. Write down what you can see in the shadow areas, the highlight areas and other various parts of the scene. Then take 3 bracketed exposures of that scene. More often then not, when you get any one of the three images on your PC screen they will not match your notes. The detail you could see with your eyes from the shadows will be gone and they may be completely black. Other areas will be very different too. Once we understand and accept there is a gap between what we see and what we can capture, then we can sometimes do something about it while we are still in front of the subject. Not always though as this isn't an exact science. I have found that I can do something it in enough cases to make a significant difference to the quality of my photography. Its rather stating the obvious as the saying goes, but AV is just two things, the A and the V and in my view the V part is squarely in our control. What appears to be an insignificant light area when we look through the viewfider of our camera is often enough in the resulting photograph to drag the image appeal down to the level of a snap, a record shot only. Once we realise and accept that, it makes us far more careful when framing up an image, but if you have a digital SLR you should be adept at exposure compensation and bracketed exposures. Its worth getting that instruction manual out. Dave Thanks for your comments on the images, which although I never said it, makes my point. These are all recent. Any competant photographer can find 12 great images from the last 5 years, but the last few months is a different matter. It makes the point that if you get this right, your success rate climbs sigbnificantly

Not being a Mac user I thought I would pass on this comment received today. I have copied it here becuase the two shows he mentions are the ones that were made with the new beta version using PTE sound, Botanical Artistry was not. Hello friends at Beckham Digitall, I was formerly a PC user but late last year changed over to all Mac and have written you several times before about your great work! Both during our PC time and then when going to Mac. I just downloaded both "Perfect Exposure" and "Everlasting Home" and both played perfectly except the audio in both is missing and thought you would appreciate the feedback about the audio problems. I immediately downloaded and played "Botanical Artistry" for a test and it played perfectly both video and audio. My system is a MacPro Quad 2.93 6GB Ram and is a late 2009 model. Thank you

I think I have been listening to the nonsense spouted by far too many on these issues for years and decided enough was enough. However, understanding exposure and accepting that important fact that what we see is not what we get makes a lot of difference to the standard of our photgraphy. Edd, No problem using the tutorial Geoff. Australia is fine, well into late Autumn now, but today was sunshine and 26c a glorious day