JPD

I thought, when I saw the Pan/Zoom/Rotate working than the functions we had in 4.48 would work. It seem I'll be obliged to wait some times, because I am not abble to do a slideshow with only these 3 effects. Barry, very nice, but one of your balloon isn't in the good direction :-)))

Generally we don't work this day, but exceptionnally we are ready :-)

With a "motor" smaller than before (162 Ko VS 250 Ko) Bravo

Igor, Would it be possible to have "Light of the Far Worlds" made with the V5 in order we can see the difference. Yes, I know, but the problem is that this person has nothing on the screen. Igor, it seems that the problem wasn't about PTE.

One of the Diapositif's member has a PC with : - processor Duron 1300 , - RAM = 640 MO - Graphic card MSI with 64 Mo He says us that on PteShow he has only the sound and on Flowers, nothing. Do you think that it comes from the graphic card ?

Do you mean that PTE doesn't use the Radeon but only the main processor on my PC or not?

Bonjour Igor, I tried both slideshow first 1024 x 768 screen definition Result PteShow just pan not perfect Flower perfect I tried them with 1600 x 1200 screen definition Not so good results of course but it work all along. These slideshow works about 5 or 6 times better on my PC than similar slideshows made with other product (maybe people don't know enough to use them). The result seems very good, but I wait to test it by myself to confirm. My graphic card isn't one of the best : Radeon 7500 - 64 Mo P IV 500Mo Well done Igor

I have find that on my 2 PC which are abble to read DVD, if I open Windows Mediaplayer with a file, made a pause and then open the DVD with another player, the colors are good and are the same than with the PTE exe file (the colors corrections of the overlay doesn't work) and are better that those of the same DVD when I read it without opening Windows Mediaplayer (or another one) before and of course better than on TV. The hardware acceleration change the color on my 2 PC, it must probably be the same for other PC, and the color is also change when I use my DVD player with TV. When we create a DVD with PTE codec or another one plus DVD movie Factory, the datas in the AVI files are he same as with PTE, but all the system which read DVD directly seems put a correction so the colors of the picture haven't the same level. So I think it's necessary to have a good DVD we must corect the colors before to do it. Does somebody knows a tool to do that ?

I understand that your picture is brighter than the original one. Am I right ?

I have made a little exemple here with 3 pictures in the AVI file (576 x 768). The first one is made of 16 parts with 16 grey levels from 0 to 255, the second one with 16 levels of grey between 16 and 235 as I read on the net about commercials CD, and the third one with 16 differents colors in order it's near the same as PTE grey scale with my graphic card (ATI - Radeon 7500, screen Viewsonic P95f+) when hardware acceleration is used. A pte file with only one picture of 1024 x 768 with exactly the same grey level as the 1st AVI picture lauch the AVI file, so we can easily compare the colors. The AVI pictures are in the middle. There are 2 PTE files, the first one, AVI.pte is used to create the AVI file and the second, Overlay.pte to compare the colors. If the hardware acceleration isn't used, we don't see any difference between the 1st AVI picture and the PTE picture, if yes, there is a big difference with my PC. If the hardware acceleration is used, there is a big difference between the 1st AVI picture and the PTE picture and a very little difference between the 3rd AVI picture and the PTE picture. All the pictures are in the zip file. I hope to succeed to be understand, excuse me for my bad english.

I did the comparison on my 3 PC, it's the easiest to do, and also on Secam TV, but the comparison on a TV is more difficult to do. I have use the same codec as you used, but it seem to be the same thing when using a DVD made whith Ulead from the PTE codec, I must do others test to be sure. There is really a difference between using or not "hardware acceleration" function when viewing an AVI file. In the sample I give here the begining and the end are PTE files and all the pictures where Hubble is are AVI pictures. I will prepare another sample. You are right, it's seem to be the correct word. The harware acceleration change the color on my different PC. The reason is maybe to correct the commercial DVD which would work only between values 16 and 235 in order to have at the output of the harware acceleration a value between 0 and 255, but I am not sure of this explanaition.

Thanks Ken, I read the pages you give, but I don't found anything about the problem that I have. If I well understand, the overlay is a picture calculate directly by the graphic card, without using the CPU and which is above the picture of the screen, so it's impossible, for instance to copy these picture in the clipboard with the screen copy function. These pictures exist only when using "material acceleration" (it's a translation from french and am not sure it's the right word in english) If I don't use "materiel acceleration" of the graphic card, the color are right, but if I use it, the pictures have brightness and contrast modified. It's easier to see the difference of color in the white part of the earth, when the AVI file is running, it's more white than when it's PTE which is running. I am not sure to understand what you mean with "and the whites were dead on " but may be it's the reason I try to explain above which make the white more white.

When doing an AVI file with PTE or a DVD, the colour of the AVI on a PC or of the DVD on a TV or on a PC isn't the same as the PTE file. On a PC, if I succeed to don't use the overlay, for instance if Windows Media was reading an AVI file and I stop (pause) it and then I read with another tool the AVI file I am testing, the color is the same as in PTE, but if the AVI file I test use the overlay, the color isn't at all the same. I see the problem on my 3 PC, and I search the reason. On one of my PC I have a Radeon 7500, and I saw that for overlay there is a color correction : brightness = + 12% and contrast = 123%. I try to compare a picture where I put the same value, and it give the same result as for the AVI file. I search on the net if there was a reason and maybe found an explaination : The commercial DVD would have all the informations between 16 and 235, so the overlay make a correction in order these value become 0 and 255, with more brightness and more contrast, but it does the correction for all the video files, so it would be the explanation. I have make an exe with PTE, the exe launch an AVI file with the same picture than those of PTE with the Granot's utility, so it's easy to see if there is a difference. I change the PTE pictures with the same with Brightness = 12% and Contrast 23 % and there was no difference. I did also the test with normal picture, but without overlay, and the color of PTE and AVI where also the same. I made an exe which launch an AVI (all is in the same exe, I used Winrar to do it), in order you can see what I mean, it's here . Did somebody can confirm (or not) the explaination I found, and which method you use in order to have good DVD (or AVI/MPEG file). Would it not be necessary to have an option in PTE to correct this problem when doing an AVI file ? Note : I use Microsoft mpeg4 v2 Codec, but it seems there is the same problem when burning a CD whith ptev and ulead factory 2. I searched about this problem in the forum and didn't find anything, but it's not easy for me to understand all is write.

I did myself this table with which we can compare jpg quality, enough long time to do, but not very difficult. Note : please excuse-me to use N.B. I didn't know you don't use it :-) No, the steps' duration relate to a very quick slideshow, not for yours.

It's possible to do sound's file smaller, but it's also often possible to have pictures' files smaller with the same quality, so PTE will be smoother. I mean than, for instance when using Adobe, many people use the function "Save as" and not "Save for the WEB", so there are many datas in the jpg file which are unnecessary for PTE. I recently see several slideshows where the size can be smaller of several Mo, one use 192 pictures of 720 x 480, each filesize is about 82 Ko made with Adobe (Save as, Q=8), but in these files there are for each only 60 Ko for the pictures, that mean it's possible to earn more than 4 Mo, in this slideshow, only 10 Mo are necessary for PTE, and it will run smoother and quicker. On another one, there are 383 jpg files made with Adobe (Save as, Q=3) and the total size of the jpg files is 40 478 Ko, about 106 Ko for each picture, in which only about 69 Ko are necessary for PTE, that mean that it's possible to earn on this slideshow about 14 000 Ko, so instead to have an ogg file at 46 Kbps, it would have been possible to have an ogg file at 64 Kbps. If you don't use "Save for the Web" in Adobe, it's always possible to use a tool as Irfanview for which there is an add-on which permit to remove unnecessary datas without changing anything to the picture. I made some test on a picture and you can see here the relation between quality and size for Adobe and Paintshop, so you can see, for exemple that "Save for the Web Q=40" is the same real quality than "Save as Q=3 in Adobe", but the file is smaller. Another thing, it's often difficult to know which is a quality of an ogg file, the different tools doesn't give the same information : Q | Nominale Bitrate ------------------------ -1 | 45 kbps 0 | 64 kbps 1 | 80 kbps 2 | 96 kbps 3 | 112 kbps 4 | 128 kbps 5 | 160 kbps 6 | 192 kbps 7 | 224 kbps 8 | 256 kbps 9 | 320 kbps 10 | 500 kbps I hope that these informations will help you. NB The durations in non-synchronized mode are by step of 15.625 ms (64 steps for a second), so even with a very quick PC it's impossible to have a duration less than this value. In synchronized mode it about 4 times more.

You have to install and select before lame_enc.dll, then you choice this file in the preferences menu of Audacity. After you choice the bitrate in list on the left of the windows (I don't know the english name of this option. It's "débit" in french)

It's always better for the same bitrate with ogg (difficult to say 1, 2 or 3, I just test it was better especially on transitions), and not always, but very often smaller, but it's not a good thing if you use mp3 64 kbps to convert them in ogg, it's better to start from mp3 128 kbps or better. There is also the THOMSON mp3PRO Audio Player (64 kbps for free version) which maybe give good files, but I am enable to tell you if it's really better as they say. If I had to do it, I would chose this method. Sorry, I forgot an answer, if possible try to don't be under 64 Kbps. Is there part of music in mono, if yes, you can make a special file in mono for this part.

I don't see why I would repeat what other (you) explain correctly and as you say I can't do that... in english, .... but in french, yes. What you explained is interesting and I just spoke about one point where I don't agree with you. This is really where is the problem, your explaination is good and everybody can think that necessary the conclusion is right after so many good explainations. But, as you say "let's get on and help other's to enjoy the PTE Program..." Thanks for your wishes, have a happy Easter too Bruce No, that will not degrade the mp3 file, no problem

Sorry Brian, I never said that all you said was wrong, I just said that what you say in your last sentence is wrong : "because of those two differences you simply CANT replace Wave Files with Mp3 Files and expect the synchronisation to be as it was" . I always think it's wrong. For the other part I never say it was wrong. I spent an hour to test before answer, please test and you will agree with me. May be I don't give explaination, but I explain all the tests I did, the name of the tool and the version of the encoder and explain than ogg was better. I think that these informations are really interesting for a newbye on this forum. And the link give more interesting informations about wma, mp3 and ogg, I also spent several hours to do these tests. I don't speak to much (difficult for me), I test and I give to everybody the result, that's all.

I am sorry Brian, but what you say is wrong , really wrong, I always do like Chas and never had problem. Before to answer, I made a test and replace a wave file of 3"12" by the mp3 file of the same sound. I made all the mp3 files with Goldwave and I try at several frequencies : 48000, 44100, 32000, 24000, 20050, 16000, 12000, 11025 and 8000 hz at 128 Kbps stereo. All these files run exactly for the same time with PTE. The sound of the last file was very bad but exactly of 3'12". I also try the worst sound at 8000 hz 8 Kbps mono, the length was good. So before to do an answer to a newbye, please be sure you know problems about the question. I had the same problem once, it was with a file I had from the net, so I don't know with which tool it was made. There are sometime problems with sound (I have a file which is good on some PC and doesn't work on others), and often with WMA files, but these files are bad or protected. PS I used Lame 3.96 I just can say to Chas to try to convert with another tools than those he used, and he will have a better result with Ogg . Please go there about ogg, wma and mp3 files. PS It's a good method to work with wav file, so if you have to modify it, you don't lose anything, I do the same for picture, I first work with BMP. I change for ogg and jpg at the end and after have a look at the time line to correct the synchronization if necessary.

If you used your method for "False Creek", it's easier to say how you did : - don't use all the screen : 1024 x 500 - kill the exif data with a tool as Irfanview - use quality=75 always with Irfanview or another tool like it. For the sound, use a bitrate of 64 Kbps, but don't use a WMA file as in the exemple, because it's bigger (more Ko) than Ogg and the quality isn't so good : For a similar song (just a little bigger) : WMA 2'13" 64 Kbps = 2 078 689 bytes + 46 592 bytes for PTE when using WMA = 2 125 281 bytes MP3 2'13" 64 Kbps = 2 028 664 bytes OGG 2'13" 64 Kbps = 1 960 812 + 57 344 bytes for PTE when using OGG = 2 018 156 bytes Even on this exemple, OGG is smaller (105 Ko) than WMA. When zipped these files there is a smaller difference : about 40 Ko, but always a better quality . As I have my own page, the large files aren't really a problem and I use other rates (128 or 160 Kbps with Ogg), generally a quality of 90 with Irfanview and I just give a link for Beechbrook. False Creek is a nice place, thank you for sharing.

About "Santorin, Enter in the light", the author has made several slideshows about Greece and one about Dubrovnik (Croatie). It's here

Did you use the time-line to synchronize your show ? It was my first mistake when I begin with PTE with the same problem as yours

It was to day on beechbrook.

I don't understand why you didn't succeed to download Hubble, I succeeded yesterday and this morning. However here's two links to download it : Here is the first link and here the second one