Animation

[mightec]

Dom, Thank you for sending the modified PTE file, I now understand fully your comments. I thought that you were saying that the problem was something to do with the smooth settings of the keyframes. I was looking for a centre reference to do with the keyframes. I had purposely set the Centre to 100 and 0 thinking that it would give a better impression of the images. I really appreciate your help.

[thedom]

Mike, I am glad at could help you.

I thought that you were saying that the problem was something to do with the smooth settings of the keyframes.

I was looking for a centre reference to do with the keyframes.

Yes, exatly. For an object, imagine you have 2 keypoints.

For the first keypoint, set center to 0 - 0.

For the 2nd keypoint, set center to 100 - 0.

In you pan the object and want to apply smooth speed option, you can't because the center of the object will have a linear speed option.

The result will not be a smooth pan.

...I don't know if it makes sense for you.

I think we need Lin now for better explanations !

[mightec]

I would just like to thank everyone that contributed to this posting, in particular TheDom, it was a great help. I possibly haven't spent to much time looking into the customising of the animation settings. Clearly this is something that I need to do, but I found it difficult to find any writeup on the subject. Thanks again and I hope that others may have gained from the posting. All I have to do now is rework my original template, hope to do this over the weekend. But now around of golf is calling.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

This item proves the point that the PTE manual is in dire need of up-dating, I would estimate that half the features of PTE are being missed because there is no information on how to use them. Relying on getting information from the forum on the current & new features is no substitute to a comprehensive manual.

Yachtsman1.

[Barry Beckham]

Yaughtman

A manual can indicate what button to press to do something, but no manuals help with flair and creativity. Most modern software can be used in many different ways. How an individual uses the software is difficult to put in any manual. Look at Photoshop, there books by the million and videos galore, but people still struggle badly.

Then just as the manual you have decided to create, which has taken taken enormous time and preparation, the software moves on and you have to start all over again. Good luck with your request, but I will be amazed if you ever see what your looking for.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Maybe somene should write "The Idiots Guide To Pictures To EXE" could be a best seller & a constantly changing reference.

Yachtsman1

[Lin Evans]

Hi Eric,

You may get your wish soon. Unfortunately, it's not really possible to "update" the existing unofficial user's guide because of extensive changes to PTE which are not only necessary, but quite desirable additions, modifications, etc. To do justice to the new features and to help beginners and even advanced users alike, it's really necessary to do a re-write.

The problem with "updates" is that even when there are only minor modifications in menu structures, etc., they greatly impact documentation because they alter page numbers, reference numbers, diagrams, etc. In fact, many times it's "easier" to do a complete rewrite than to attempt to "update" existing information.

Jeff and I (and Ray) spent many tedious hours on the last unofficial user guide and still missed a few important issues. Shortly after we finished, a new version of PTE became available which made some of our screen captures and diagrams obsolete. Since that time we have actually progressed to what I believe is a totally new version of PTE rather than an iterative update. There are still some exciting new features which have not yet been totally described and certainly not yet been officially introduced as usable beta features. Once all the beta features for the latest "version" of PTE have been included and the newest version "release" has been officially blessed, then hopefully I will have time to devote to a complete rewrite of the manual.

I haven't discussed it with Jeff yet, so I don't know what his schedule looks like, but right now I'm about to loose my home to foreclosure which means I will soon be forced to move in (or possibly before) early October. This will be a major time sink and will make it difficult to work on this. Between the move which will involve liquidating 20 years of household goods, ranch equipment, vehicles, etc., and my wife's current serious health issues, my time will be severely limited. Hopefully we will be settled by the end of October and probably PTE will be much closer or already released and I will have some time to devote to doing a rewrite.

I'm considering a new format for the rewrite by putting it into a "modular" rather than unified template. This may have some significant advantages in the future by making periodic updates much easier to accomplish. Rather than indexing the entire document, there would be individual stand-alone sections each having their own index and reference tables and without an overarching structure.

The overview would contain a glossary and an index of terms, etc., which would reference individual module content. This overview would then be periodically reviewed for appropriate reference links and when new features were added, they could be simply referenced, annotated and explained in new "modules" rather than trying to fit them into a huge single document which would adversely affected changes and additions are made to the base program.

I offer up this idea for forum discussion and perhaps we can reach a consensus before beginning on new documentation?

Best regards,

Lin

Maybe somene should write "The Idiots Guide To Pictures To EXE" could be a best seller & a constantly changing reference.

Yachtsman1

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Lin

Sorry to hear of your problems, I bet you will be glad to see the back of 2009.

Re the PTE manual re-write and playing devils advocate, maybe it would be better to wait for the anticipated sound editing feature?

Regards Eric

[Lin Evans]

Hi Eric,

Thanks - it's a tough time but we will keep plugging away....

Perhaps - we will have to discuss it with Igor and see what the time frame might be before making a decision. The developers really need a holiday to recharge their batteries and think about future development needs and directions. They have been overwhelmed recently with requests for features and changes, etc., and really need some time to kick back and relax without the stress of both developing and addressing issues.

Personally, I believe that with all the new features and "major" changes and improvements that the moniker version 6.0 should be considered rather than 5.7. All requirements for a major change and new "version" have been satisfied. Things such as multiple display support, native MacIntosh output, mask creation and adjustment, borders creation and canvas adjustment, 3D transformation, 3D shadows, unlimited help and information windows, text vectorization, etc., all add up to a new version number in my book!

When the next release comes, whatever it may be called, I think it's time for new documentation and user guide production. I think the modular concept will take care of things like the addition of new sound controls, etc, and there will be no real need to wait for changes in order to get started on a new "unofficial" user guide.

Best regards,

Lin

[Barry Beckham]

Yaughtman

This is the same thing I have experienced many times with video tutorials, one small change to the software and as Lin says, a re-write or re-record is far quicker than trying to squeeze things in. I don't think there is an answer to this, because of you wait for sound editing then some other addition will be on the horizon then.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Lin

There's also Windows 7 to consider, if there is as much hassle as there was with Vista, it could open a whole new can of worms?

Regards Eric.

Forgot to mention, I don't know if you can access BBC Iplayer? there's a film noir evening tonight, all the classics as well as a what makes film noir.

[thedom]

Animation is great and I have used it a few times, but authors may like to ask themselves two questions before they get involved in complex animations in their slide show.

1. What is this animation going to add to the appeal of my show?

2. Is the image(s) I am about to animate strong enough to be on screen for the length of time I need?

Generally in my view, the answer to No1 is probably very little or nothing and the answer to No 2 is probably not. Of course there are always exceptions, but from where I sit getting these two questions right is like finding Hen's teeth. Movement is no substitute for interest and appeal.

Barry, I agree but here are some question authors can ask themselves too :

1. Are my images of enough interest to be presented still with fade transitions ?

2. Do I have to add some animation to make my show entertaining in order to keep my audience ?

3. Can I try to make something different and original to surprise my audience ?

In my opinion :

• Answer to No1 : Yes it works for pictures with a high level artistic, aesthetic, stunning pictures...
  Unfortunately a very few of us are profesional photographers and have the talent/the subjects to make this kind of pictures.
  
• Answer to No2 : No for your friends and family who will most of the time enjoy to see what you made, visited, etc...
  But for others ?
  
• Answer to No3 : Of course not an obligation.
  But if you succeed, it's so satisfying for you and your audience.
  

[Lin Evans]

Hi Guys,

I think perhaps that the question of animate or not actually reaches toward the philosophical heart of why people create slideshows and why others watch slideshows. Life itself, by definition, is animation. A photograph is a "slice of life" where time is artificially frozen. and we have more time to examine that artificial segment of a true continuum.

The popularity of movies and videos demonstrates, at least in part, that people like to see both that with which they are familiar, but in new context, as well as those things which are novel, imaginary, or unbelievable. Thus we have movies about people or events (lives, strife, war, conquest, contributions to humanity, etc.,) as well as the totally fictitious and unreal. The amazing popularity of books which have been made into movies such as the Harry Potter series, indicate that the human mind is quite versatile and that entertainment can, and should, be just as versatile.

This brings into question the purpose of presenting our still images to an audience.There are numerous reasons why we may want to display our photographs. It could be that the presenter is greatly skilled at capturing life or nature on film. The subject matter could be human, animal, God's creations (nature, landscapes, etc.) or human creations (architecture, cities, constructions, etc.). In such a case, the purpose of the presenter is to have others appreciate the photographer's vision or insights into the subject matter. The presentation is then a series of "slices of life." The purpose may be to tell a story, reveal hidden truths, evoke emotional responses, provoke thought or simply entertain. Whether or not to "animate" these images depends greatly on both the image content and the intended purpose of the presentation.

There will frequently be a dichotomy of opinion over not only animation, but animation (or not) of what? There will be those who simply become bored with viewing a still image for more than a few seconds and who prefer that image to be in motion. Whether it be zooming in, out or panning or a combination. Others want to see parts of the image in motion such as a winter scene with snow falling or a waterfall with continual motion or the ceaseless motion of waves on the sea. Others will want to view those scenes as that frozen slice of time, without any embellishment by the presenter.

So the question then becomes why animate at all when one "could" simply take a video or movie and present that? There is a certain logic to this argument. I believe the reason some are inclined to animate is that with a movie or video, we can only present the motion provided by nature while with animation the author has control over that nature by amount, texture, position, timing, etc., of the animated part or whole. What works for one observer may be folly for another. The very fact that virtually every presentation slideshow software offers multiple "transitions" between slides is objective testimony to the fact that the human mind can quickly become bored not only with senseless motion, but also with the absence of motion. Whether that motion be in part or whole within the image itself or as a break from boredom between images, there is a place for animation. And just as there are countless different subjects for our photographs, there are countless different opinions and preferences concerning how those photographs might be best presented to an audience. One size definitely does not fit all! To animate or not; the eternal question. There are perhaps as many answers as petitioners.

Best regards,

Lin

[Barry Beckham]

Barry, I agree but here are some question authors can ask themselves too :

1. Are my images of enough interest to be presented still with fade transitions ?

2. Do I have to add some animation to make my show entertaining in order to keep my audience ?

3. Can I try to make something different and original to surprise my audience ?

I have always viewed this question differently to you and I suppose it is this variety that makes the work go round.

1. Are my images of enough interest to be presented with animation that would keep the image on screen much longer than a static slide show ?

2. Is movement going to put any appeal or interest back into the image, compensate for it being a little ordinary?

3. Can I try to make something different and original to surprise my audience ?

Answer in my view

1. Probably not, so better stay with a shorter show and don't have the image on screen too long

2. Definately not. The worse example I ever saw was from this very forum. An out of focus image on screen for 50 seconds being moved and warped all over the place. (An extreme example I know)

3. Yep fully agree

I always find myself uncomfortable with this line, which I have heard many times and would like to put forward another way of looking at this.

Unfortunately a very few of us are profesional photographers and have the talent/the subjects to make this kind of pictures

1. Most of the amateurs that I come into contact with would hold their own with many professionals, they certainly do have the talent to produce images worthy of a great slide show, especially from a creative viewpoint.

2. Professional means a person earns their living at it, it doesn't mean they are any good at it. There are many examples of wedding photographers who make a good living without a creative bone in their body.

3. How many of us here are professionals anyway, by that I mean we are commisioned to take pictures. Very few I would guess

4. The line could also be viewed as a cop out too perhaps. Well, I am not professional so I can settle for a much lower standard. Doesn't the amateur usually put more TLC into their work, because they are not chasing the almighty dollar?

Having said that Lin makes some good points, look how television uses movement to keep our attention. Sometimes the movement is almost overpowering, but it is obviously done to add interest. I like animation, but I like subtle movement most of the time.

I can't quite make up my mind if video/TV is different or not to our still images. I suppose if you animate you please half the people and if you don't, you please the other half. That's life

[Guest Yachtsman1]

The mention of animation in film & television brings to mind a documentary that was on TV yesterday afternoon. It was called Sacred Music & was on BBC2. The programme was about a man called Palestrina, who I had never heard of before. He lived in the middle ages and composed music. The point of my post is the documentary was composed of static scenes 75% and the rest of uninteresting animated shots of the presenter travelling between the various locations where the music was being performed. The documentary really held me & I would suggest anyone who has access to the BBC IPlayer service check & see if it is on there. The musical style this man wrote in was/is called Polyphonic & really magical to anyone who likes classical music. It would make a stunning background to a show I'm planning on making later this year at one of our Cathedrals.

Final point, even on TV a show composed of mainly static shots padded out with a touch of animation can be equally acceptable.

Yachtsman1

[Barry Beckham]

I agree, but the fact that we have a very interesting documentary adds another angle that is generally missing in our slide shows. There's a thought, perhaps we should consider this a bit more often and include more commentary in the form of a Documentary.

I am not sure we are comparing apples with apples though. I really think there are no right or wrongs here, or in many other areas of photography come to that. Most is just personal taste and all things being equal to animate or not is a personal thing. The one area that for me I am positive about is that movement does not add impact, appeal or charm to an image. If that image has none of those attributes, it should be edited out.

Would we put mediocre, boring or badly played music into our slide show and then add some digital effects to the sound to add interest. No, so why consider that as right for the other 50% orf the slide show

[RayC]

Hi

Lots of infomation on Palastrina on google also music and if your in the US you can download Free

but no where else.

Ray

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi

Lots of infomation on Palastrina on google also music and if your in the US you can download Free

but no where else.

Ray

Hi Ray

On Amazon UK there are loads of tracks. I've since downloaded a 5 minute plus track for 69p, just right for my Cathedral show, just need some pictures now. BTW for newcomers there are a couple of ways of spelling the name Palistrina so try Palas---- if that doesn't work.

Regards

Eric

Yachtsman1.

[thedom]

1. Are my images of enough interest to be presented with animation that would keep the image on screen much longer than a static slide show ?

In my opinion, animation shouldn't mean image on screen much longer.

You're right, it's the best way to make something artificial and boring.

I always find myself uncomfortable with this line, which I have heard many times and would like to put forward another way of looking at this.

Unfortunately a very few of us are profesional photographers and have the talent/the subjects to make this kind of pictures

1. Most of the amateurs that I come into contact with would hold their own with many professionals, they certainly do have the talent to produce images worthy of a great slide show, especially from a creative viewpoint.

2. Professional means a person earns their living at it, it doesn't mean they are any good at it. There are many examples of wedding photographers who make a good living without a creative bone in their body.

3. How many of us here are professionals anyway, by that I mean we are commisioned to take pictures. Very few I would guess

4. The line could also be viewed as a cop out too perhaps. Well, I am not professional so I can settle for a much lower standard. Doesn't the amateur usually put more TLC into their work, because they are not chasing the almighty dollar?

Actually, I used the wrong word.

I said "profesional" but I meant talented photographers, whatever they do it for a living or not.

I really think there are no right or wrongs here, or in many other areas of photography come to that. Most is just personal taste and all things being equal to animate or not is a personal thing.

I agree 100%.

[Ken Cox]

In my opinion, animation shouldn't mean image on screen much longer.

You're right, it's the best way to make something artificial and boring.

Actually, I used the wrong word.

I said "profesional" but I meant talented photographers, whatever we do it for a living or not.

I agree 100%.

IMHO

if you take money for your services you are a professional

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

IMHO

if you take money for your services you are a professional

ken

Sorry Ken

I'm afraid it's my disagreeable week, there are people out there taking money & claiming to be professional, and are in fact right right cowboys

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

[Ken Cox]

Sorry Ken

I'm afraid it's my disagreeable week, there are people out there taking money & claiming to be professional, and are in fact right right cowboys

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

Eric

there are degrees of professionalism

ken

[Henri.R]

After reading all this valuable comments it seems to me that maybe the default setting for zooms, pans, rotating must be 'smooth' instead of 'linear'?

Anyhow, after inspecting my shows it proves that I'm using 'smooth' most of the time..

regards,

Henri.

[jevans]

Hi Eric,

You may get your wish soon. Unfortunately, it's not really possible to "update" the existing unofficial user's guide because of extensive changes to PTE which are not only necessary, but quite desirable additions, modifications, etc. To do justice to the new features and to help beginners and even advanced users alike, it's really necessary to do a re-write.

Lin

Lin,

Seeing your post on re-writing the user manual, I have been thinking along the same lines as yourself. There have been so many changes since we last prepared the manual that it is now out of date. I would not mind contributing again but would want to seek Igor's views first. Also I would want to use the same technique as last time, i.e. describing the functions of the various controls and facilities, rather than producing a "how to" guide. It seems to me that your excellent tutorials and those of other forum members provide good coverage to meet the "how to" requirements. Like you, a re-write is probably in the "too difficult" box and a new approach is needed.

Regards

Jeff

[davegee]

With respect Jeff, what most people want is a "HOW TO" manual.

Every Thursday night at club I get questioned, not about where a particular switch is etc, but HOW DO I USE IT?

Your excellent first edition explained all of the controls in the animation tab but that doesn't tell the user how to rotate one object around another for example.

These are the sort of questions I get - people can work out for themselves where everything is - it is another matter to actually put it into practice.

Just my 2 pennyworth and IMHO etc etc etc.

DaveG