Scottish August

[Guest Yachtsman1]

This show is a test bed for various changes in my soft & hardware. The changes being, The show is in 5.7 Beta 8, the sound is in Audacity 1.3. The pictures were taken with a new Canon EOS50D using an EF 70-200L F4 lens. The single lens was because the D/heads I bought from managed to send the second lens damaged, and are prevaricating about re-funding me for it. As this has now gone to litigation I can't name them, however they are one of the UK's biggest camera etailers, so beware.

The show is almost entirely consisting of HDR compilations using Photomatix software,to combine triple AEB shots. padded out with a couple from the wife, The pictures were taken on a 3 day photographic break to Cumbria, Galloway & Northumbria, unfortunately the Cumbria & Northumbria visits were washed out so it's just Scotland. The pictures were taken on the Scottish side of the Solway Firth, Starting at Dumfries, then into the Rhins of Galloway, as you will see the weather was far from perfect. This is the first attempt with everything mentioned, so is only a trial. The music & title matches the mood when I think of the company I bought the camera from. The show is on Mediafire & is 6.5 minutes. The link is http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=8ad124354296d6c795af63b7d44918aae7cf5f3badeaddee

Wet Yachtsman1

[Ken Cox]

ERIC

great colours - overall good job

what is the vertical column on left side of large island /rock?

cold and gloomy -- just as you feel with the mail order house

why do so many people not buy locally -- is the price difference that great?

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Ken

I think the column on the rock is a lighthouse. Price differences from etailers can be up to 15-20% less than High Street retailers. So on a 2k order is a temptation, unfortunately. It would have been safer buying from Ebay.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

[Ken Cox]

Hi Ken

I think the column on the rock is a lighthouse. Price differences from etailers can be up to 15-20% less than High Street retailers. So on a 2k order is a temptation, unfortunately. It would have been safer buying from Ebay.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1

Eric

thks

ken

[Barry Beckham]

Yaughtman

Nice idea, but have you fallen into the Fixed Size of Slide (in Pixels) trap.

I played your show on my Dell 27in screen running 1920*1200 and if those pictures are from a new lens, then take it back quick

Don't panic, that was just my idea of fun. I don't think you have any problems with your lens, but I suspect that your show was made at 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and on my screen without that Fixed Size of Slide (in Pixels) box ticked the picture qualitiy isn't good. Your original images are stretched to fit larger screens and the quality of the images then become poor, which is a shame.

If you tick that box, in the Project Options > Screen Tab those of us with larger screens see your show exactly as you created it and we can then appreciate the correct image quality.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Yaughtman

Nice idea, but have you fallen into the Fixed Size of Slide (in Pixels) trap.

I played your show on my Dell 27in screen running 1920*1200 and if those pictures are from a new lens, then take it back quick

Don't panic, that was just my idea of fun. I don't think you have any problems with your lens, but I suspect that your show was made at 1024*768 or 1280*1024 and on my screen without that Fixed Size of Slide (in Pixels) box ticked the picture qualitiy isn't good. Your original images are stretched to fit larger screens and the quality of the images then become poor, which is a shame.

If you tick that box, in the Project Options > Screen Tab those of us with larger screens see your show exactly as you created it and we can then appreciate the correct image quality.

All the pitures are sized at 1024x768 which is the native resolution of my projector. If I make the files any larger my laptop starts to throw wobblers as it's at the limit of it's capabilities. So for those of us using aged technology it's OK. The 5.7 use was to test my hardware & on my machine the first flip slide judders.

Yachtsman1

PS the duff lens wasn't used, read the original post again.

[Barry Beckham]

Yaughtsman

I was only kidding about the lens, but the effect on your images for those using a higher resolution monitors is just the same, in fact a lot worse. I am not suggesting you change your resolution or do anything fundemental to your slide show. I was just tipping you off that if you tick one box in PTE you can avoid this issue. I and many others running a higher resolution than 1024*768 will then see your images just as you intended and I am sure you would want that.

See the attached screen grab

By ticking that box it will have no effect on your slide show at all at your end, but your images will then not be enlarged way past the resolution you created them.

This is an issue that many will not know about unless they happen to run their slide show on a higher resolution monitor, then the poor quality of the images would surprise you. Easy to fix and I am just trying to give you a heads up. We sweat blood to produce our shows, so most of us would be devastated if our show looked awful on another monitor all for the sake of one tick.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Barry

No attached screen shot/grab???

Please try to spell my user name correctly.

YACHTSMAN1.

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Barry

No attached screen shot/grab???

Please try to spell my user name correctly.

YACHTSMAN1.

Barry

I have done as you suggested, however the show in preview and exe is displayed in a black box with the picture 2/3rds the size it was previously on my 1280x1024 laptop, I have put the revised version on Mediafire, this is the link. http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=8ad124354296d6c795af63b7d44918aa71e14cd2f47a8c0f

This is a screen shot of the ticked box.

[denwell]

Eric

If you created the show with 1024x768 images and ticked the 'Fixed size of show' box then it will always run at your chosen resolution, regardless of the size of monitor it's shown on - hence the 1024x768 show will leave a 256pixel 'black box' around it on your 1280x1024 monitor.

[davegee]

Den,

Did you mean that his show would have a 128 pixel border at the top, bottom and both sides?

DaveG

[davegee]

Hi Eric,

Now that I have had a chance to view the 1024x768 version:

Something that occured to me regarding the original was that the Title would possibly make much more sense if it was scrolling upwards.

Secondly I have noticed that some of the clear blue patches in the skies are pixelated and show signs of being over-compressed.

Otherwise, great images and stirring music.

DaveG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Eric,

Now that I have had a chance to view the 1024x768 version:

Something that occured to me regarding the original was that the Title would possibly make much more sense if it was scrolling upwards.

Secondly I have noticed that some of the clear blue patches in the skies are pixelated and show signs of being over-compressed.

Otherwise, great images and stirring music.

DaveG

Hi Dave

The muddy blues are as a result of processing triple AEB shots with Photomatix, the normal shots of the three don't exhibit the muddiness. The downward scroll was to ensure people at the back of an audience at a projected show can see the lettering. The music is "Last Crossing" from a Celtic album. I faded the first 3 minute sequence as it ended then upped it a semitone and faded in a repeat. Easily missed if you don't know it's there, probably be more effective if it had been two semitones. People really should give Audacity a try, it's so easy and produces wonderful effects.

Thanks for the comments.

Regards Eric

[denwell]

Dave

Did you mean that his show would have a 128 pixel border at the top, bottom and both sides?

Yes of course dear boy! Simple maths.

[davegee]

Eric,

I have been using Photomatix for a couple of years and it has never given me JPEG artifacts.

Some of those skies look like they have been sharpened and saved at JPEG level 4-5 - they ain't muddy - they'se pixelated.

The downward scroll is suitable for an audience who like to read backwards - I'm not into that.

Anyway, if you're happy.....

DaveG

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Eric,

I have been using Photomatix for a couple of years and it has never given me JPEG artifacts.

Some of those skies look like they have been sharpened and saved at JPEG level 4-5 - they ain't muddy - they'se pixelated.

The downward scroll is suitable for an audience who like to read backwards - I'm not into that.

Anyway, if you're happy.....

DaveG

Hi Dave

The camera is new to me & Canon as opposed to Nikon, 150 shots to date, 2/3rds of which were HDR so divide by three. The Photomatix is new to me and my head is old & has to be coaxed into new technology, I had to use a lens for the shots that I wouldn't normally use for landscapes (70-200 F4}. My laptop can't cope with large file images, if the shots are over sharpened, it wasn't me it's one of the processes, I very rarely use sharpening for PTE shows as it's caused moire in the past on animated shots. The downward scroll could be better if the first words appeared first, however I still believe titles in the upper half of the screen are better for large audience shows. I think you are being hyper critical in the circumstances, which were listed in the original post. Maybe it's the silly season again, not enough posts & too much critisim.

Regards Eric

[Antbrewer]

Hi Eric,

I totally agree with DaveG regarding the scrolling of the title,from the bottom of the screen upwards as we all tend to read this way.

Perhaps it is me being a little dim but I do not fully understand the significance of the title/question relative to the images.

However I thoroughly enjoyed the land and seascapes as Scotland is a place I have visited so many many times.The music sits very well the the sequence.

Thank you.

Anthony

[Barry Beckham]

Eric

Sorry about the YACHTSMAN spelling and forgetting to add the screen grab, but I see you found it anyway. We were just going out and I was rushing to complete the post and the wife was already in the car, well that's my excuse.

The upshot is that I can now see your slide show at the size you created it and it looks a 100 times better, but your earlier post makes me want to ask another question. Why make a slide show at 1024*768 and then show it on a 1280*1024 laptop screen so that the images are enlarged as I described earlier.

You should be seeing that black border around your slide show when you play it on a larger screen res and if you are not, how come you didn't spot the loss of quality when your images are stretched? . It wouldn''t be quite as much loss going from 1024 to 1280, but I can spot it straight away in my earlier shows

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Eric,

I totally agree with DaveG regarding the scrolling of the title,from the bottom of the screen upwards as we all tend to read this way.

Perhaps it is me being a little dim but I do not fully understand the significance of the title/question relative to the images.

However I thoroughly enjoyed the land and seascapes as Scotland is a place I have visited so many many times.The music sits very well the the sequence.

Thank you.

Anthony

Hi Ant

The first post in the thread explains why the show was compiled, it was a testbed for various significant changes to my photography, new camera system and editing software & a first foray into HDR.

The significance of the title referred to the abomination of the wind generators spoiling one of the best coastal views seen on our short trip, coupled with the fact that as oil continues to be a major factor in the Worlds conflicts makes one think more about the future. Maybe I'm just getting old.?

Yachtsman1

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Barry

The 1024x768 as opposed to 1280x1024 is a hardware resource thing. I have an almost three year old laptop, nothing else, it is struggling now coping with what I and PTE 5.6 throw at it. Sizing my images to 1280x1024 I assume increases the file size of each picture, making it struggle even more. Some of the charity DVD's I've made have upwards of 300 images which is stretching a 4.2GB DVD to it's limits. I think sizing the images to 1280x1024 would push both over the top. Also my projector I use for public shows is 1024x768, so I can't see the point of changing how I size images and I certainly have no intention of changing the laptop or projector this year, maybe when Windows 7 is proven. The DVD's I produce look fine on my 32inch Panasonic TV & fill the screen at the resolution I set the pictures.

To finish, have you ever though it could be you who is out of step with promoting this charge to acquire the latest and not always best technology, when the majority of the world would probably be happy with what they have? It only benefits the manufacturers. After all, camera manufacturers aren't jumping into the widescreen minefield, 3-2 has been around a long time. I will still bang the "if it aint broke, why fix it" drum.

Regards Eric

Yachtsman1.

[Barry Beckham]

Eric

Sorry, I must have not explained myself correctly. I wasn't suggesting you increase the size of your slide show images at all and I fully understand the recourse thing. What I was trying to say was that without ticking that box, even you are not going to see your slide show right when you view it on your PC. The images will be enlarged beyond the size you created them. If your happy with that and all your work is for DVD, then I agree it wouldn't make much difference to the final output.

But you posted your show for others to view and I thought you would be interested to know how it is seen by others.

Your last comment seems to suggest you havn't taken my post in the spirit it was meant. I appologise if my choice of words has given you the wrong impression.

[trailertrash]

I thouroughly enjoyed that. Being a Scot I love to see my homeland in all its glory.

Andrew

[morturn]

Yachtsman1.

Am I missing the point here, I don’t understand why you have started this topic, were you looking for constructive criticism or adulation?

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Yachtsman1.

Am I missing the point here, I don’t understand why you have started this topic, were you looking for constructive criticism or adulation?

Things too quiet for you on the dark side???

Yachtsman1

[morturn]

I must apologise, but I thought it was a really simple question I asked, what has the “Dark Side” got to do with it? Shall I rephrase it for you?