Ed Overstreet

Another question that came up as I was preparing some screen-shots of PTE to work into an Acrobat handout for a photo-club presentation on PTE. I have no trouble doing a Print Screen of the main PTE window and pasting it into a JPG in Photoshop for annotation, red-circling key buttons etc to make certain points. However, when I go into the O&A window, when I use the Print Screen key on my keyboard (with the Shift key held down of course) nothing happens, I don't get that screen in the clipboard I still get whatever I last screen-printed from the main window, when I try to paste into a JPG in Photoshop. This isn't critical, as a work-around I just took a photo of my CRT monitor display with a digital camera. Of course, my 9-year-old monitor isn't flat-screen so the photo has serious spherical distortion and also major moire patterning but it is useable in my presentation. But it would be much nicer to use Print Screen if I could, the results are much sharper and easier to work with. Any ideas why I can't do a Print Screen in the O&A display but can on the main window display in PTE? Is there a fix for this, am I overlooking something? (I did disable the box in Project Options where you can prevent Print screen from working in the EXE show, but that shouldn't affect print screen when I'm running PTE itself, and turning that box off didn't make any difference to my inability to print the O&A screen to Windows clipboard).

I did search the forum for "pause slide show" but the only thread that the search returned was not relevant to my question, so here goes. Maybe this has been asked before, but darned if I can find the thread in this forum. I'm preparing a presentation to my photo club on PTE. I've always left "pause slide show when window becomes inactive" clicked On in my Project Options, I don't remember now why I started doing this. I've word-searched both the 5.6 user manual and Lin and Jeff's excellent 5.0 manual, and I don't see any discussion in either source of why one might (or might not) use this feature and when. Can anyone tell me please what difference this Project Options setting would make, and when or in what circumstances? I just know this question is going to come up in my presentation in March (JRR in reviewing part of my presentation has already raised the question, and he doesn't know the answer either). Thanks.

The following may have been discussed before in one of the many beta versions that I didn't follow, in which case maybe good reasons for not doing the following have been explained. Or perhaps not, so I thought I should raise this. I am in the midst of preparing a presentation to my photo club for persons new to AV production and to PTE. As I prepare my presentation, I am struck by something that I am almost certain is going to confuse and perhaps put-off newcomers to the software. It doesn't bother me, I'm used to it, but I think the software would be much more intuitive to some users if the following might be fixed. The problem is that when I insert slides as Objects in the O&A window for one of the "normal" slides on the timeline, there is no where in the software (other than in that O&A window) where I can see a thumbnail of these extra objects and reassure myself they are there and know where they are located (this could even be a problem for me if I go back to a show months later, looking for a slide that I know is SOMEWHERE in the show in an O&A window but I can't remember which one exactly). The only hint the user has is (sometimes) the unusually large gap most of us leave in the main timeline for slides that have lots of O&A objects under them, but in a show with lots of such animations and many objects in them, finding a particular slide that is used only in an animation window could be a nightmare. Is there some way of (perhaps as an option that can be toggled on or off) displaying these "hidden" slides or objects in some fashion that makes it reasonably clear with which main slides they are associated or in which O&A window they reside? It might be too messy and confusing to do this in the timeline itself, but maybe in the "light table" display? As I say, this isn't a major problem for me,first because I'm very familiar with the software and the fact that some of the slides I use are "hidden" from the main screen, and second because I don't use animations all that often, nor do I use a large number of slides as objects within animation windows in most of my shows. But I can well imagine this being a big problem for some new users, even some more experienced ones, and I'm not looking forward to trying to explain all this to the poor newbies who will be attending my presentation next month Any thoughts? Or is there an icon or control somewhere in 5.6 that will give me this display, that I haven't noticed?

I thought I'd posted this earlier some weeks ago, but I can't find it now so I thought I'd re-post one idea and add a related one. I really appreciate being able to hear music in the O&A window during playback, but it would also be nice if there could be a display of that portion of the waveform at the bottom of the window. This would both help fine-tuning control points to events in the sound track, and also (see below) the waveform could be used to provide reference points for the timing of control points for some objects. Failing that, or in addition, it would be nice if one could see the timeline(s) for at least one other object when working on the control points for a different object. I often find myself wanting to time the actions of one object in relation to control points for another object. This isn't always easy to do just using the preview window; if I could see the timeline of at least one other object than the one I'm working on, it would be much easier and quicker to coordinate the control points for the two objects. for example, if one wants to fade down one object while fading up another, but with a bit of an offset on the timeline. I realize that we don't want to clutter the display with too many timelines, which might get to be pretty confusing once the number of objects involved gets much above two or three. But providing even just one timeline other than the one for the object currently being worked on, could help, especially if one could designate which object's timeline would be displayed from among those in the objects list. If adding both the waveform and a second timeline would be too much, then my preference would be for the waveform. If necessary, before switching between objects I could try to find a specific reference point or "spike" on the waveform and use that to help position control points for the timeline of a different object. Of course one can always write down the keyframe times for specific reference points and use those to help place control points on a different timeline, but it would be easier either to use the waveform for reference or better yet have at least one other designated timeline displayed for reference, and do the linkages visually rather than numerically. I hope I've worded this clearly enough This is not a "critical" issue for me, but it would be nice to have these features.

Hi Ken. I don't trust myself to send Canon an email yet, in my present mood the language I'd use wouldn't be very "civil." Maybe in a week or so, when we've cooled off a bit, one of us will figure out a way of communicating our dissatisfaction in words that someone might actually read through and think about -- if they're capable of thinking about customer feedback. "Sorry it's a characteristic of the projector, we think, can't help you" really isn't impressive performance by Canon in my book. I'll leave it to Jim to deal with Panasonic (I dealt with Canon, Jim with Panasonic since it's his projector). The switch that fixed the problem is, after all, in the user manual (albeit well-buried and somewhat cryptically referenced), one would have thought they might have suggested it to us ... From other comments above I suspect that with these two companies, as with others I've dealt with, a lot depends on which particular tech support person you happen to get. Some of them are very helpful and cut right to the chase, others are hopeless. It shouldn't be that way, but it seems to be. It happens so often that, rightly or wrongly, I've given up sendng feedback or asking to speak to a supervisor (after being on hold for 20 minutes) because I have more interesting things I'd like to do with my life. However in this case I think I'll make an exception But yes dealing with tech support in these two cases has been REALLY frustrating. I've already told our colleague at the club that Canon and Panasonic should fire their tech support and hire him, he's better at it. But I suspect his day job pays better ... As Jim mentioned, our colleague has suggested a couple of other things to try on the Canon, but Jim and I can't get back to the Canon again until mid-March so it will have to wait 'til them. As a backup Jim has agreed that if necessary for our club showcase in April we can use his Panasonic for projection, now we know how to get IT to work, though that isn't ideal because in the large hall and large audience we have, the Canon's higher resolution and brightness are preferable (when it works, which it actually does for most other things in PTE). We will of course keep everyone posted on what we find out with the Canon, but it won't be for a month and a bit, sorry. Bookmark this thread and stay tuned. And we'll keep monitoring this thread in case others here come up with a fix before we do (if there is a fix for that projector; I find it hard to believe there isn't, but it won't be the first time that expensive hardware has disappointed me if that's how it ends). Or maybe there's a software work-around that may occur to Igor and his team, but I appreciate he and they have a lot of other things on their plate and there are no doubt limits to what they can do with this problem. But we live in hope. As a final aside, like Ken I run my monitor at 75 Hz, at 60 Hz I find the flickering (especially in the white parts of the screen, in all software) is too annoying and tiring for my eyes.

Like Jim, I'd prefer to hold off until we hear something from Igor on this issue, before spending any significant additional time on this issue. Jim and I have spent a lot of time on this, other projects (photographic and otherwise) that are at least as important to us are suffering as a result, and at the moment I'm feeling that there are too many variables, in addition to the many that we've already ruled out, for me to cope with on this. We've heard only about the projector aspects and limits on this issue so far; I'd like to hear from the software developers as to what, if anything, could be done in the software. I'd much rather try to see if there is some way of getting some of our existing hardware to run these things properly, maybe with some upgraded components or different connections if that's really going to fix the problem, before running out to spend more money on newer equipment which, as we all know both from computers and from digital cameras, will become obsolete almost before we get the darn thing home and out of the packaging. Maybe that's my creeping old age talking, or maybe it's wisdom bitterly acquired after having been through this too often with too many photographic and computer toys over the past ten years or so. I should have told my investment broker to invest my money in electronics and photographic equipment instead of those catastrophes he recommended that I buy into. I agree some test shows, both "basic" and maybe separate ones that "push the envelope a bit," would be good, but first I'd like to hear whether anything can be done in the software. And yes, like Jim, I'm "old school" AV, having cut my teeth about twenty years ago on two slide projectors, a dissolve unit and a four-track tape deck. What a nightmare compared to the joys of working with PTE, especially when you want to tweak something a little bit. But it taught both of us to build AV shows on image blends and transitions, since Fades were all we had available at the time. Even now, I rarely want or feel the need to do more than one or two pans or zooms in an 8-minute show, I think they are more impressive if done selectively, rarely, and when they make a difference, rather than running them almost every transition for no obvious reason, as we've seen some producers at our club events do over the years. PTE does great basic fades, and if that's all it could do, I could live with it (since that's what we lived with for about 10 years before digital was an option). But it sure would be nice to be able to trust a projector to pan through a panorama stitch without tearing it apart or making it look like the camera is being held by someone who needs to consult a physician ...

I like the idea of someone producing a test show that we can all use whenever we're finally in the market for a new projector or computer. However I completely understand and sympathize with Peter's reluctance to get involved, which I'd share were I comfortable doing such a show (which I'm not). I'd already decided that the next time the club is in the market for a new projector, I will plead, beg, or demand that we run the test show that Jim and I created and posted above on any projector under consideration before buying it. Selfish of me, but I have no interest in a projector that can't run a simple pan through a panorama stitch, at a minimum. So there's a start (but not a finish) for a test show. Surely to goodness it's not unreasonable to expect a projector, computer and AV software to do a reasonably-paced pan through a panorama file (which inevitably is going to be a large file, unless you want to live with pretty pathetic resolution). Honestly folks, I have trouble seeing much value in a pan feature that can't pan through a bloody panorama stitch, except on my monitor at home! With all respect to Ken Burns et. al. I'm happy to volunteer my panorama file, posted in the link way at the beginning of this thread, for inclusion in such a test show, if the designer of the test show doesn't have a better example to use. I'm still puzzled, as I think Jim is and perhaps Peter, by why we encounter these problems only with certain pans and not with other animations, but I accept that it has something to do with frame-rate incompatabilities somewhere. Though I'd have hoped that if some animations work just fine on our projectors and others don't, that maybe there is something Igor can do in the programming of a later version to accommodate those "problematic" animations that we've identified. But not being a software engineer and knowing nothing of how the PTE code is written, I have no idea whether that is feasible. However for now I guess I just have to live with the fact that certain animations that seem pretty innocuous and conservative to me just aren't going to work on our current equipment. I don't have to like it, though.

Forgive my ignorance of most things electronic, but on re-reading the Wiki entry and Panasonic's reply, is there any difference between what Panasonic calls YPbPr, the Wiki entry suggests should be merged with "component video" and S-video (which I believe Colin mentioned earlier is another phrase for component video). If they're essentially all different words for the same thing, then we already tested that on Tuesday, found it did solve the problem of tearing but caused sharpness problems that were worse, unless we plan on limiting our projections to audiences like Ken's (and probably my own) grandkids I think I need to leave this alone for a week or so and come back to it later when I haven't been thinking about it so much ... At the moment I feel like I'm just going around in a large circle and packing the snow down. Though don't they go around in circles when they thresh wheat? I can't remember

Thanks Ken. Guess I should start thinking of checking Wikipedia sometimes ... I guess our next chore is to see whether the club system and maybe the SX50 has the requisite connectors (though I'd have hoped Canon might have suggested something like what Panasonic suggested, if that's an option on the SX50). The next issue then is what happens, if anything, to the overall picture sharpness when we do this and if there's a trade-off whether the trade-off is worth the bother.

The following reply just came back to me from Canon Canada, confirming Colin's conclusion 100%. My club's choices are 1) buy another projector (not tempting given our financial situation at the moment, not to mention my uncertainty regarding whether we'd find one that will avoid this problem and not have others; 2) pray that Igor can think of some fix for this, though that doesn't look likely to my un-technical eyes given what Canon is saying, or 3) we just live without being able to pan through any panorama-format images except at a snail's pace, in our shows. Not very happy or pleasant, but at least we have some resolution, at least from Canon. I don't see any point to Jim or me wasting any more time testing this, at least not on the Canon projector. Possibly not on Jim's either, he has something coming from Panasonic that I'll let him report separately. (Ooops just saw Jim's message coming up while I was editing mine; see his also) The full text of Canon's latest and seemingly final email to me follows: "Thank you for your E-mail inquiry regarding the Canon Realis SX50 Projector. Thank you for taking the time to conduct the requested tests. There are no adjustments within the projector menu, that would allow control or adjust the frame rate you mentioned. We have performed the test in our lab, with our own equipment. With our equipment, we too received the same issue you have identified, with the files you've provided. We can conclude, based on these tests and the tests you have performed from your end (with both scanners and multiple computers), the this is considered to be a characteristic of the projector. Thank you for your time and patience in performing the requested tasks." Please everyone note that Canon reports EXACTLY the same problem that Jim and I have been reporting, in their tests on their equipment. Please also note Canon's confirmation of my observation that I couldn't see any way to adjust the frame rate for the projector; if Canon can't do it, I sure can't. Enough said, at least from my perspective. I believe we have hit what is colloquially called a brick wall, or a dead end, or choose your favourite metaphor. By the way, referring to the reply that Jim copies above, does anyone know what a YPbYr is when it's at home? Don't you just LOVE it when tech support people send you stuff like that?

For the record, on my laptop computer (which runs our test shows without any "tearing" on the monitor, but the tearing effect does appear on the projector connected to the laptop) -- the Canon manual says the projector can handle 60 Hz. The lowest monitor refresh rate available on my video card is 60 Hz, and when I set it for that in Display Properties, I still don't see any ill effects on my monitor. And I still do on the projector (when the projector is wired to my laptop, 60 Hz is the only choice my video card gives me; with a monitor, depending on the screen resolution, it gives me up to 75 Hz and sometimes more than that). I don't have easy access to our club's computer, but my recollection is we'd have the same problem there. Adjusting the refresh rate in Display Properties isn't solving our problem, at least on our projectors and monitors. I fear that Colin's suggestions in his last post (either a firmware update by the manufacturers or maybe something Igor can do in the software) are the only likely "fix" for us ...

Jim and I did some more tests this morning on the club’s Canon SX-50 projector as well as on his Panasonic projector. Further to several suggestions on this thread, as well as a request to do so from Canon tech support, we borrowed an S-video cable and ran our test shows on both projectors from the club’s desktop S-video port. The result was good news/worse news. Yes, running the shows through S-video does indeed eliminate the wipe/jitter problem (the good news). But, and this is a very large but, when running either projector on S-video, the Windows desktop and the image displays are horribly un-sharp. Though the projector menus appear sharp on the screen, even the text below the icons on the desktop, and the wording within the Windows Start menu, is fuzzy enough almost to make one wonder whether one’s spectacles need replacing. No photo club audience would sit through a presentation that un-sharp. We tried everything we could see in the projector menus, not to mention adjusting the projector-lens focus, but nothing sharpened the image to a level either of us considered remotely acceptable. Maybe we both are overlooking some simple fix for this that someone on this thread knows about, but whatever it is it’s not obvious to us on the projector menu nor in the projector manual (we also had good looks at both of those). We’ve reported the above both to Canon and to Panasonic tech support to see what, if anything, they have to say or to suggest for further testing. We’ll let you know if someone comes up with a solution, but at the moment it’s not looking promising. We also have discovered that the problem disappears if we run VERY long pans in our out-of-the-opening-frame tests, i.e. at least 30 seconds’ duration. Interesting but not a tempting solution; both of us found ourselves nodding off waiting for the pans to finish. I have trouble imagining a show that I’d produce or that I’ve ever seen that would hold my attention during a pan running that slowly. Again perhaps suggestive of where the problem lies, but not suggestive yet of a practical solution, at least from our viewpoint. It doesn’t look like we can safely project a pan through a panorama file except at a snail’s pace, no matter how smooth things (still) look on our monitors. We will continue to beaver away at this problem as long as Canon, Panasonic, or anyone else comes up with a line of testing that seems likely to lead toward a solution, but at the moment we are not encouraged.

First, I'd like publicly to thank Peter for all his work and the very useful results he got. Peter is the only person so far who has done a well-controlled test of our sequences with two different computers on the same projector, same cable, same tests, same everything else, and has obtained results that shed a little light on the problem. One setup worked; the other didn't. That's pretty suggestive, and extremely helpful (at least in pointing to the general area where the problem likely lies). As I understand it from Peter's post and private emails to us, the one configuration of Peter's that did work had the oldest, lesser-powered graphics card, a card that at 64 mb of video memory has only half what Jim's and my laptops have and only one-quarter of what our club's desktop computer has. All three of the latter systems use video cards that heretofore have been considered "good" or better for PTE 5.x. This tells me that the problem likely is not the video card, certainly not the amount of video memory, though it may have something to do with drivers, or (heaven forfend!) an interaction between those elements and other as-yet-unidentified hardware or software components on the operating systems. (I say this having recently fixed a vexing keyboard problem that turned out to be caused by a not-very-necessary utility in my Startup menu that my DVD-movie playback software put in there during an upgrade; why a utility for movie playback should have any effect on my keyboard is utterly beyond me, but that's one of many reasons why I don't like Windows operating-system debugging -- the problem could be coming from almost anywhere, and from places utterly unexpected and illogical, at least to my mind.) Peter's tests convince me the problem is something, likely not very easy to find, that one of his laptops has (or doesn't have) running that his other computer (and Jim's laptop, my laptop, Jim's desktop and the club's desktop) don't have (or do have). That's the only explanation I've seen, either in our tests or on this forum thread, that makes any sense to me. I have a couple of tentative ideas of a small amount of further exploration that Jim, Peter and I might do that I'm going to share with them by email, though I well know what a mind-numbing and time-wasting task it is to try to ferret out obscure hardware or system conflicts in Windows. But I'm willing to try one last quick-and-dirty attempt at that. If we learn anything from this, I'll report it on this forum. If by some miracle either Panasonic or Canon tech support come up with a "magic bullet" (I'm not holding my breath), I'll report that. Otherwise, Jim and I are throwing in the towel and resolving to steer clear of O&A effects in our shows intended for projection, or at least restrict ourselves to a very narrow range of very conservative animations, until someone comes up with a compelling and convincing explanation for what the problem really is and a clear and hopefully not-too-expensive fix for it. That hasn't happened yet. Thanks everyone for all your help and suggestions, but honestly at this point I'm crying "uncle" and getting on with other things in my life. Oh yes, and thanks very much Barry for letting us know that you've been aware of these problems for some time and were getting them on a very-well-equipped desktop. Misery loves company, even when the misery doesn't really solve the problem.

Latest update from our end: Jim tested the frame effect that Peter suggested, on his laptop and Panasonic projector. The frame made no difference to the problem we're seeing. The panorama continues to display badly behind the frame, while the frame itself remains stable on the screen and projects well throughout the animation. To clarify my earlier comment -- on all our tests with our two laptops, only the projector display was turned on, the laptops' integrated LCD monitors were turned off during the tests. With the tests involving the club's desktop (which showed the same problems as both laptops, with both projectors), only the projector was connected to the 15-pin video port, no monitor was ever connected to the desktop during the tests. Jim ran pan animations through the images provided to us by Canon, with the same results that we've been seeing all along (except that, as reported earlier, the very large original files generally displayed badly on monitors as well as on the projector -- the versions of the images that I down-sized displayed well on monitors but not on projection, in a pan-through). Given the reality of how we project images at our club, and the limited tolerance of many of our club members (certainly including me) for the complexities that can involve, the DVD-as-an-intermediate-output option is a non-starter from our standpoint. However anyone on this forum who wants to test that option is welcome to download the files at the links given above, have a try, and let us know what they found.

Thanks for the replies and further suggestions. Jim will be testing Peter's suggestion on his projector some time this weekend; I'll report what he finds on this forum. The frame makes no difference on my CRT monitor and laptop (the animation is smooth as it always was), but that's no surprise. The key is what will happen on projection. It is not easy for Jim and me to test the Canon projector, because it has to be used at the rec centre and we have to book a room at a time that is convenient for both of us and at which rooms aren't already booked for other purposes, which is not easy. Some time in the next week or so we will re-test a few things on the Canon projector, but for now will have to limit ourselves to working with the Panasonic. We'll save up the suggestions already made and any more than come to this forum in the next few days that seem to be worth pursuing, then test them all at once on the Canon. Canon wants us to test a couple of ridiculously large files that probably were taken with Canon's new full-frame camera and haven't been resized; they're 5600+ pixels on the long dimension and one is 13 mb which even my trusty laptop and CRT monitor choke on, but we're also testing some more reasonable downsizings of their test files (1024 pixels on the long dimension file sizes around 400-600 kb). They gave us one portrait-format and one landscape-format image to play with, and we're panning them vertically in, through and out of the frame (similar to the animation on slide 17 of the posted test show, only with a vertical pan instead of a horizonal pan). We've never tried testing with what I think Dell Canada calls an S-video cable connection to the projector. My laptop has such a port, but Jim's doesn't and he doesn't have a cable or connection of that sort for his projector. I don't know whether the club Canon and desktop have the appropriate connector ports and cables; I don't think we've ever used that sort of connection (whether CV or S-video or whatever one calls it). If we find a port and cable of that type that we can test with the Canon whenever we get to it next, we'll try that. The question about the Display Properties setting for "projector only" vs "laptop plus projector" is something we were careful about; the problem isn't from that setting, as far as I can tell and remember.

Thanks for the suggestion, Peter. I don't have access to either projector myself, and access to the SX50 is very difficult to schedule. However I'll pass this on to Jim and see if he can try that on his projector (Jim, I think I understand what Peter is suggesting and will create a short show with Slide 3 and the added object super-imposed throughout the animation, maybe also do it with Slide 4 and the slower pan on the same image). A couple of other minor technical points that Jim and I neglected to mention in the documentation (because it didn't occur to us), that Canon Canada has asked me about (they are still looking at the files but were very prompt in getting back to me, quite impressive I must say). All of our tests involved running the EXE file off the relevant computer's hard drive; no we did not run these tests from a CD, a DVD, or a USB device. In all tests the projector was connected to the computer using the cable supplied by the manufacturer with the projector, which if I recall correctly was maybe one metre long or perhaps shorter. We tested the Canon projector with its cable and the Panasonic with its cable. The cables were connected to the 15-pin video port (that's what Dell says the thing is called, I looked it up once I found my manual) on the computer and the corresponding port on the projector. No we did not test with any other cables, but I very much doubt the problem would be the cables we were using. 1) Both projectors have a problem, and they aren't using the same cables (and these are after all the cables the mfr ships with the projectors). 2) Neither projector has any problem smoothly displaying any other animations we've thrown at it, except the ones illustrated in our test shows. 3) In my experience, when a cable fails, the failure is a lot more catastrophic and a lot less subtle (relatively) than what we're seeing. Thought I should mention these points here, in case these questions occur to anyone following this thread. Jim has sent a separate query to Panasonic tech support, with links to this forum thread and to our zip folder. As far as I know he hasn't heard back from Panasonic yet.

Just to reinforce Jim's point -- yes the panorama file is larger than what is normally recommended, but if one is to use a panorama stitch that fills the screen top to bottom and therefore extends beyond the boundaries of the image frame in the O&A window, that is inevitable. And, as Jim points out and as we demonstrate in the test show and report in our findings, our monitors have no trouble at all running the animations not only on the 1.2 mb pan stitch but also on Jim's 3mb Lions B shot. Please take a close look at these in the documentation, and try them on your monitor, and I think you'll see what we mean. The issue is NOT the file size, either in kb/mb nor in pixel dimensions, at least not in our tests. The issue is that neither of the two projectors we test can do what the our monitors can do, on the same computers we tested. The projector was attached to the computer, in every case, using the same connection port that one uses to attach a monitor to the computer, don't know what it's called, sorry. It's blue in colour on most systems. So the projector is getting its signal from the same port as does the external monitor. Also, with reference to Yachtsman's query, the show is in fact an EXE show, please look again in the zip folder and subfolders. We included both the EXE show and the PTE and JPG files, the latter so people could go into the show itself and see exactly what we did, if they want. Some of the pans are perhaps fast to some taste (though a 7-second pan is what the music called for in my original show, so that's what it was), but one of them is a 22-second pan, which I think is plenty slow enough, and as we report in the results, the 22-second pan didn't look any smoother on projection than did the 7-second pan -- though both looked very smooth on all our monitor tests. The speed of the pan is NOT the issue either, at least not in the panorama-stitch file, except perhaps in slides 5 and 6, especially slide 5 where the pan was 1.5 seconds just to test for the effect. As others have mentioned above, layers are irrelevant, all these files are JPGs and hence have no layers in them, though the original PSD files from which the pan stitch was saved obviously had layers. That is also irrelevant to the results; we encounter exactly the same pattern of results if we take a single image and produce a panorama crop from it and pan through that. Whether layers ever formed any part of the image at any stage of its creation is irrelevant to the results.

As promised in my last post two months ago, JRR and I have conducted some extensive tests on the problem described above, comparing the Canon SX-50 projector with Jim’s Panasonic PT-LB104 projector. The problem of the projector not displaying smoothly animations which the monitor does display smoothly, even using the same computer, is NOT unique to the Canon projector. I have started a new thread on this forum providing some more information about what we found, and also providing a link to a 30-mb zip file that anyone can download to learn more of the details of our testing, as well as copies (both PTE and EXE) of the relevant test shows, for others to test on other projectors if they wish and are able to do so. You will find the new thread at http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9354 I am cross-posting here mainly to direct those who might have bookmarked this thread, to the new thread. Please make all replies or queries to that new thread, not here, after reading my post on that new thread. I wish to stress that no fingers should be pointed specifically at Canon or at their SX-50 projector. The problem is broader than one model of projector.

This post is a follow-up to an earlier post which sparked some lengthy research by Jim Robertson (JRR) and myself; see the earlier post for the background: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....st=0#entry59039 The original post was specific to one projector, the Canon SX50, in displaying a particular PTE show. However, we have now discovered that we encounter similar projection problems, and the same inconsistency between monitor and projector display, with a Panasonic PT-LB104 projector as we did with the SX50. The only difference is that the SX50 displays what can be described as a “wipe effect” during certain pan and zoom animations, while the Panasonic displays what can be described as “jitters” on the same animations. Both effects render the animation displays unacceptable. Our tests revealed the problem is not specific just to one particular panorama pan, nor unique to panorama or panorama-format images. Neither projector has difficulty displaying all other PTE 5.5 shows or animations we have tested on it, other than those animations that have the parameters we have tentatively identified as being problematic (see below). We have created and run a test show to investigate these differences, and have tested it on four different computers (and hence four different video cards), both projectors, and several monitors, in most of the possible hardware combinations. The problem always occurs with both projectors, and never with the monitors we tested. We have investigated and eliminated as possible causes about 20 factors, including all of those previously mentioned by other Forum members in the above-mentioned thread. We have written PDF documents that describe the problem, how we conducted our tests, the specifications of the hardware we used, what we found, what we conclude and why we conclude it. These documents, along with two different versions of our test show (including the EXE file, the PTE file, and all the JPGs used in the test show) may be downloaded from the following link: http://www.mediafire.com/?ymwmyurgvik We conclude from our results that the projection problem is partly, if not entirely, related to panning and/or zooming outside the opening image, something which will necessarily always happen with a panorama-format image when displayed on a 4:3-format device and often even on a 16:9-format device. The percent of zoom used in opening the image to be panned or zoomed, and the speed of the pan or the zoom, also seem to be related to the projection problems in some cases. The fact that we can’t get these animations to project smoothly, even though the same computer that ran the projector can display the animations smoothly on a monitor, is a considerable cause for concern for us. For one thing, it means that for such animations (and maybe for other animations we haven’t yet explored or discovered), we can’t trust the monitor display to warn us when something won’t look good on projection in front of an audience. Many producers don’t own projectors, but present at photo clubs or other venues, using equipment owned by the club or someone else. They cannot easily pre-test shows on a projector. Any inconsistency in animation smoothness between monitor display and projection, even when using the same computer and video card to run both devices at the same resolution, is both baffling and a significant concern (and embarrassment at times). Please see the details included in the zip folder available at http://www.mediafire.com/?ymwmyurgvik if you wish to test our shows and findings. At their request, I am also providing our test information to technical support at Canon Canada, with whom I had corresponded earlier concerning the problems we had encountered initially with the Canon SX50. If I learn anything from them that I think would be of interest to this Forum, I will report it in this thread. I wish to stress that no fingers should be pointed specifically at Canon or at their SX-50 projector. The problem is broader than one model of projector. Ed Overstreet

Not every producer is going to want to use that option, nor would every producer likely want to use it all the time. However there is already talk in other threads of a function that would display some or all of the slides in a random order, so in fact "handing over 50% of what makes a great show to a random setting" is already being contemplated by some on this forum for the other 50%. Not that I'm advocating that nor would ever want to use that feature (but like any other feature, it would be an option and not a requirement). For some users, and some shows, either or both options might be very attractive, however -- with emphasis on the words "option" and "some." BTW my understanding from the website I refer to above is that particular software does allow the user some latitude in influencing the music that it creates, so the creation isn't exactly random in any case.

I too would love to see this. My new Nikon D90 records AVI clips at up to 1280x720 pixels, which is a size that would integrate well with my still images. I guess one question is whether to go AVI or MOV (or both?) for the import -- some cameras only record AVI (like the D90), but a lot of P&S digital cameras record MOV instead. I suspect that converting between formats won't be wonderful, and I'm not sure which format is better but I suspect if Nikon went AVI for the D90 (what did Canon go for with the new 5D?) that probably means AVI is better, certainly it's what is used in making DVD videos ... I suspect that now both Nikon and Canon have introduced SLRs with a movie feature, that's going to become standard equipment on most models by most marques from now on, so the evolution of AV software to incorporate such clips would be great. I'm working on a show on the windmills of the Lassithi Plateau on Crete, photos all taken on my D200 (the D90 wasn't even announced yet when I was there), and though I did get some multi-shot high-speed sequences of a couple of the windmills spinning, that's not the same as an actual video clip, and it's a lot of rather tedious work to get all those frames to line up correctly when you didn't use a tripod (which I don't when I travel, too much extra luggage and hassle). If I'd had my D90 on that trip, I'd have done the clips in the movie mode, and then I'd really like to be able to integrate them into an AV show with the stills. There all are sorts of other applications one can think of, and now that some of us (and eventually probably most of us) can have video capability without having to blow another $1000-$1500 on a dedicated camcorder that takes up even more space and weight in the camera bag, I think there's going to be a lot of demand for this option.

The software developer's web site is www.abaltat.com. I can't find any samples of music output there; they do have a couple of tutorials, but for some reason I can't get them to run on my system. One hopes the tutorial comes with sound and a sample file, but I don't know. I already got a reply from the developer's info link kindly thanking me for my interest and telling me they are planning to release a Windows version of their product "later in 2009." So this is coming. I look forward to it. In the meantime some of us can check out AVI to MOV converters, assuming the developer is still wed to MOV input. However I'd feel a lot happier and more comfortable if Igor and team could somehow integrate something like this into or with PTE a little more elegantly than that, hint hint This certainly won't replace music that has already been composed and that the show producer has in mind from the get-go (which has usually been my case so far), though of course there is always the thorny issue of copyright for those of us who might want to sell a show or display it publicly without the expense of getting a license, but who also are not talented enough to compose our own music from scratch or blessed with friends or associates who can compose music for us. In that case, or in cases where one has a sequence of images but is truly stuck for a good piece of music to go with them, I think this could be promising, especially if the user can play with some settings and have some effect on the direction of the music without needing a conservatory education in music to do so. There is already software out there that lets non-musicians take a stab at composing music with software after inputting some general preferences for music style, etc. (one of my sons-in-law plays around with a couple of those products), but this is the first product I've heard of that tries to integrate the music "composition" algorithm to a video track. I'm not good at creating music (nor at vocalizing or playing it) but I'm pretty good at image sequencing and I love music, so this concept has a very strong appeal to me. Whether the reality of the software will match my vision of that concept is another issue, but we'll see ...

Bear with me on this one, it isn't as far-fetched as it sounds. Thanks to JRR, who called this to my attention, I think there’s a germ of an intriguing new dimension to AV and maybe to PTE, if Igor’s team and/or other software engineers on this forum can be convinced to pursue it. Please forgive me if someone else has already spotted this idea, posted it, and I missed the post. There’s a new product by an Irish tech company called Muse 2, see this link http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/5887...o.html#features The current version works only on a Mac OS system (sob). It will take a Quick Time video input and generate, with user intervention if desired, royalty-free music to match what is going on in the video, presumably using some of those algorithms that are used to generate some of the “skin” effects one gets on some digital music players. The software outputs the result to WAV or MIDI format. PTE (and some other Windows software too) can generate AVI files from AV shows. If the developers of Muse could be convinced to come up with a Windows product that takes AVI input, instead of or as well as MOV input, then consider the possibilities. I could generate an AV show, with my own choice of dissolve effects and timings. I could then get this nifty program to generate some music for me to match my images and my image timeline stream, export it then into a format that I could then patch back into my original show. Boy would that be fun, or what? Even if the music weren’t exactly at the level of Bach or Mozart, hey it would be a lot easier and faster than trolling through websites or my CD collection looking for some good music that sort-of matches the mood of my images and show. Any chance someone else on this forum, or at PTE, who knows a lot more about software development than I do (I know nothing about it) could contact the developers of this product and explore the possibilities here? (I’ve sent their customer support line an email asking if they’d consider a Windows product that would take AVI input, will see what they say.) Or is this a nice pipe dream? From the web link it looks like you can do this sort of thing NOW, with a movie in Quick Time, if (alas) you run a Mac platform. Why can't this also be done with stills-based AV shows too, on Windows? To my simple-minded view of technology, if they can do this already on a Mac, why not on a PC and using AVI format, which PTE already generates for DVDs? Afterthought -- seems to me the main stumbling block is getting a Windows version of this new software. A Google search reveals scads of AVI to MOV converters, so if I could lay my hands on a Windows program that did what Muse 2 does, I could TODAY generate an AVI file from a PTE show and then generate my very own sound track from my image stream. Seems further to me it's only a matter of time before some AV software developer picks up this idea and runs with it. PTE should be first!!! I think there could be a lot of interest and excitement around this feature, even if not for every user. I'm sure eager to try it out!

Hi Brian. Thanks for the thought, but the heat isn't likely the issue. The first time I saw the problem on Monday was during the sound-level test, when the projector had been on only for a few minutes. The second time was after it had been on an hour or so, and the problem looked identical to me in both instances. JRR (who is also in my club) has kindly agreed to meet with me over the holidays in that room with his Panasonic projector and his laptop, and I'll bring my laptop (which has no trouble at all running that pan on my monitor), and we'll test various configurations of computer/video card (including the desktop system that was used on Monday), projector and monitor with my show. That should help us isolate which hardware component(s) or combinations are the main factor. Will let you all know what we find out, it may not be for several weeks though. That room is hard to get between now and Christmas, it's in a big rec centre and it gets booked a lot for holiday office parties, so we may have to wait our turn. I've bookmarked this thread in my browser so I'll post our findings in this thread, not start a new one.

The pan effect in my show lasts about 7 seconds. I do recall running this show some months ago on the same projector and don't recall seeing the effect, or as much of an effect, at that time, which is consistent with your last sentence about the effect being sporadic during shorter (than 15-20 seconds) animations. Essentially the same effect did occur twice last Monday, during two launches of the show about an hour apart (the first launch was just to set the sound level for the amplifier, when I noticed the pan problem; the second was during the program dry-run-through of my show and 18 others, ten of which ran before mine did). So on Monday night there was some consistency, but not over six months (or maybe it's my memory that isn't consistent, but I think I'd remember something like what I saw on Monday if it had happened in April). For whatever difference that makes, probably not much. The pan stitch was in Photoshop CS3. I don't own a panorama camera, so that's how I do panorama stitches. The issue for me is what kind of proector or projection system will do what I want with my pans. Sounds to me like the answer is "something that isn't a Canon SX50." Unless of course there's a firmware fix out there for it, on which I'm still waiting a reply from Canon ... I don't know whether any of this will make a difference to my club's next purchase decision, but I'm sure not going to be getting an SX50 for myself. If and when I decide to spring for a digital projector of my own, I now know which of my shows I'm going to test on it before I buy it That's useful for me.