JPD

I didn't know that it was possible to get an hologram by this way, it's an interesting experience than probably some of us would like to try. Is it possible to have more information on how to do. I don't understand how it's possible to have a paralaxe effect with bi-dimensionnal pictures, I don't think you used a special version of "Chariot of fire" to do this experiment. Anyway very good idea which make me curious.

I continue to test PZR for 32 mb graphic cards, after the 1280 pictures' size, here's the 1024 picture's size. In this project, there must have never more than 20 mb in the memory of the graphic card and we can have more effects that we need really. You can download the test and the album. here

Not sure for BMP, you can choice to compress them or not. I never use WMA, too much problem with it, it's better to use ogg, but to day, only mp3 can be use, probably wma and ogg will be in the final product as it is in V4.xx.

I send to Igor the screen copy which is at a ratio of 0.8, but I try the same file on my ladtop, and always with WMP, it was 0.75. I made tests on both PC and for several file and DVD, even those I did with Ulead Movies Factory, I have the same result with Windows Media Player : 0.8 on the desktop, 0.75 on the ladtop. If somebody knows why, or had the same problem, I'll be happy to understand. The MPEG2 size is 720 x 576 which is a 0.8 ratio but is normally see as 0.75 ratio by all systems, what doesn't do Windows Media Player on my Desktop. If I hadn't make a screenshoot, I could think I had a bad dream :-) I just change Windows Media Plaver V9 by Version 10.00.00, always 0.8 ratio on the desktop. I stop to try to understand. Test with VLC on the same desktop : 768 x 576 = 0.75 Many thanks Bill

May be Igor, I am not enough good in this part, I'll put this file on the net and will say you when it will be ready. It's the only thing I can do.

May be I made a mistake, it's always possible, I don't know well all which is video. I just send you the screen copy. I haven't other tools to do a mpeg2 file (I lose recently all my programs), but if somebody have a good mpeg2 file, I'll read it and tell you what I see. The AVI file of the same slide show is OK.

I did 2 new tests, with the same slide show (duration 2'44") with and without hardware acceleration for video. In both cases it took 1hour and 55 minutes. For the test I talk in the first post, I used hardware acceleration. For the first test I ask for DVD and MPEG, I have MPEG but nohting on the DVD, but as it's an old system (DRU 500A), I'll make a new test on my ladtop. My slideshow is a 4:3 ratio, but when I read the MPEG file with Windows Media Player, the ratio become 0.8. The same slideshow with AVI encoder (Microsoft MPEG-4 Video codec) has a correct ratio when read by the same tool. I haven't find any option about that.

I just finish the first test for DVD on a little slide show (2'44") I choose a debit at 9800 Kb/s, select MPEG2 and DVD. It take about 2 hours to work. The MPEG2 file seems OK, but nothing on the DVD. I'll make another test. (ratio 4:3, TV system PAL/SECAM, video type: auto, Anti-flicker filter on) It's seem to be a long time for only 2'44" is it because of the bitrate? (PIV 2.4 Ghz 512 mb, use hardware acceleration for video) another little point. The french help make an error and doesn't work.

It probably to late, but it would have been a good thing to haven't the same extension for V5 as for V4, pte for V4, and for instance p2e for V5 because the files between the 2 versions aren't the same and when clicking on a pte file, it's not neccesary the right version which is open. Not a very important problem, but...

Yes, I understand but Lin is right when he says it's "inevitable", and Wnsoft is obliged and is right to use the news technologies to keep a good place in slideshow. We just need to have a good use of this tool and all will be the best in the best world.

Everybody works as he want, but there is a little difference between a tool as PTE, Proshow, mobjects... and a tool like Photoshop, Paintshop, Word, Excel and so on, if you have less power, with these tools, it will take 5 seconds to to a job against 1 second with a power PC, you'll just wait 4 seconds more, that's not a problem. But with PTE and similar tools if an effect is of one second, it must be of one second on all PC. If I try to make slideshow which don't need too much power, it's not for those who can easily buy a new card, it's enough easy for me, for instance to change my graphic card (I bought a new one recently), but many people haven't enough money to buy a new one or don't know how to do, and they will never say they can't see a slideshow because they haven't enough money (even it's cheap) or because they don't know how to to. I directly know many people who have one of this two problems to day. This problem isn't only for PTE, yesterday, Timothy from Photodex support wrote to a french user of Proshow "Performance in ProShow can be improved by breaking large shows into smaller and more manageable pieces". The size of the slideshow isn't a problem for PTE but those of the pieces is near the same in PTE. That's right that in one or 2 years, we can hope people will have at least 128 mb graphic cards, and will be abble to read the slideshows we do today, but at this moment other people will probably have 1 or 2 Gb on their graphic card, it will be the same problem as to day if they made slideshows which run only on 1Gb at least graphic card memory. I exactly do the same thing that it was done for puzzle (see here and here), try to do something which works fine everywhere, it's better for everybody and it's better for PTE promotion. I am sure that now everybody who had a problem in the past try to don't have once a more the same problem when making a new slideshow, it's we generally call experience (at least in french). I think it's good to put all these experiences in some basic rules. I think the only discussion which is above, in fact, is about the definition of a basic PC, not about the idea of rules.

Pseudo Einstein only please, it's what I (and you) read about me. No matters.

Nice work, Ian, even if I don't understand the story, to diffcult for me :-(((

It would be very nice if you could put it on Wnsoft forum. It must be also impressive.

You can make a DVD from your PTE, so that, even with a MAC you friend will see you work.

A new version has been done with the help of Diapositif's members with PTE V5 adding some effects of Pan, zoom and 3rd picture which make this slideshow more attractive than with V4. Of course it has been made in order to run on most of the PC with a 32 mb graphic card or more. I hope you will enjoy Paris 3D V5 Many thanks to Bernard Sullet for sharing this new version.

Hello comedyhunter , That's a good idea for those who want to get a wider audience, but the quality seems very very low and it's especially done for video, not sure that a slideshow with static pictures would have a great success on this hosting service. Nevertheless, thank you for the information which can be useful for some people.

As Ian say there is AnaBuilder which seems to be one of the best, and which is in French, English, Spanish..... There are also two good products : StereoPhoto Maker French/English AnaMaker English Bernard used both AnaBuilder and StereoPhoto Maker. Generally I made the same picture with at least 2 tools (sometimes 3) and choice the best result. It's often AnaBuilder. There are many other tools, but these one are free. I haven't test others. Please, TheDom contact him directly on Diapositif, he will happy you congratulate him directly, he also speak french :-) I will tell him if he doesn't go on Wnsoft forum.

I exactly think the same thing, I made some anaglyph, and I can say how it's difficult to do them in a town where there are many people and many cars which move and you need to take 2 photos for each view. A very great work for a very nice result. It's possible that it will be also done with V5, I asked Bernard Sullet about this.

Hi, One of the members of the French Forum Diapositif, Bernard Sullet, realized a slide-show using anaglyphs, probably the first with PTE (4.48). This slide-show in 3 dimensions is absolutely fantastic. It is necessary to have special glasses to see it (red on left, cyan on right), you can found these glasses on the net with Google if you haven't them. Click on Paris 3D to download it. Many thanks to Bernard Sullet for sharing

Much more clearly like that. You do not have more than to fill it. Good courage and thank you for the work

Tom, Al is right, it's depend the place you see. Paris and the place where I live (Champs sur Marne in the east suburb of Paris) are at the same definition as New-York, as I made each of my pictures with 9 screen copy at a definition of 1600 x 1200 so I haven't the distorsion made by Google Earth's tool and I didn't use the option "Relief" which doesn't permit to paste exactly differents views. I have made several pictures at different height (8) with the same method. As you see, there is nothing special in these pictures.

The size of the picture in the graphic card memory is sometimes the reason, but it seems that some graphic cards which are old of 2 or 3 years haven't enough power to do the calculations of the picture, but to day, I am not absolutely sure of that, I have to make other tests later to know. It's necessary also there is enough time to load the pictures in the memory, with my PC it's about 12mb/s, it's not very quick and may be sometimes a problem.

Many thanks, Lin, I think the same for you and several members who works to help people. That's right, but I hadn't pictures enough large, my Minolta A1 is only 2560 x 1920, I would happy to do a zoom with important zoom ratio if somebody can send me a very large picture. But even with Google earth, I was obliged to resize many pictures at the same scale as the picture at the end of the slide before, but it's enough easy to do, and it's even possible to resize the pictures if you use a large screen definition (ie 2048 x 1536) with PTE itself and make a screen copy, so that it's the same algorythme which resize and you have a very little difference between 2 slides. I'll try to explain the different way I used to do when I'll finish the 1440 and the 1024 size test.

There are many calculations to make the differents keypoints we need to do a cube rotate, so it's easier to do them with a speadsheet. But in order you haven't to do this work, there is a template here you can use and copy in your own project. TheDom made a better explanation than mine, but unfortunately his pages have been hacked and I haven't them.