Nerja...Costa - de - Sol

[Tomuk]

Hi! Gang.

I have just uploaded my latest offering “ Nerja Costa –de-Sol”, please have a look and come back with your usual constructive comments.

Tom

[LumenLux]

My reaction, Tom, is favorable. I like your use of special effects. That is, they seem to have creative/story purpose - bejond just showing what effects are possible. My personal preference would be to leave off the red arrows on two slides. The slides speak well enough for themselves. I have always enjoyed the candid type shots of people. Do you ever talk to the candid subjects ("strangers") before or after your shots?

[Tomuk]

LumenLux, to answer your question, I do make a point of trying to speak to my subjects but to do so before taking the picture would defeat the object.

As you can see from my sequence, all my candid shot were taken abroad and so we have a language problem.

The one subject I don’t photograph candidly is children, in these times it could course a lot of problems.

Thank you for your advice concerning the two pics with the arrows; in the making I thought they might raise a smile.

Tom.

[Marianne]

Hi Tom,

I just looked at your show and I realized you must be about the only one who uses full screen pictures. On what resolution do you base them? I have a big screen (1280 x 1024) and your photographs seemed a little unsharp to me, so I changed resolution to 1024 x 768 and indeed they did become sharper. Why don't you use the windowed mode?

I do like the full screen pictures though. Would like to use it myself for making a holiday slideshow (mountaineering), but I am afraid the show will get to big on such high resolution, or when I compress to much my photographs will be unsharp.

Does anyone have any suggestions on that?

Marianne

[Tomuk]

Hi! Marianna.

You are the first to say my photographs are unsharp; I assure you they are sharp.

As to the reason for full screen, well I take my sequences along to my Photographic Society on a regular basis, there we have a digi projector for projecting on to a large screen and as our membership have been brought up on twin projector pulsed sequences, they don’t appreciate the change in format, they like pictures to fill all the available screen space.

My London sequence went down like a wet blanket, some of the comments:

To gimmicky, the presentation took away the meaning of the show, you can’t win.

To answer your question I size my photos:

Size……..1024x768

Resolution…72.

Saved as jpeg with a compression ratio of 6.

Hope this is what you wanted.

If you know of a better method, please don’t hesitate to post it.

Tom.

[alrobin]

Tom,

Marianne is right when she suggests you should not be using "fit to screen" mode. Your images will look unsharp in monitors set larger than your image size.

It is not necessary to use "fit to screen", or to use "windowed mode", either, to control how your images appear on-screen. Not everyone likes using "windowed mode", but unfortunately it is the only way to control the appearance of "objects", if you use them. So, that is why many users set up titles, etc., in their image editors instead.

For viewing on a digital projector, if the images are large enough to start with, it should be possible to adjust the distance between the projector and the screen for optimum viewing. The trouble is, not everyone uses the same image size, so in presenting to a club, one sometimes has to accept the positioning of the projector to suit the one with the largest images.

[Guest guru]

You're right, Marianne. I too made some test with Tom's "Nerja". At 1280 x 960 the pictures fill the screen, and hence seem less sharp, because they are enlarged by an interpolation.

I'm quite sure Tom selected "Fit to screen (Enlarge images to fit screen)" in "Screen" options: a dangerous choice in my opinion, and useless in general. When the screen resolution is smaller than image size, pictures are always fitted to screen (even if "Fit to screen" is deselected) and there is no loss of sharpness.

(By the way, Marianne, 1280 x 1024 is a unusual screen setting: the sides ratio (5:4) doesn't correspond to actual screen sides ratio (4:3), so a square appears as a horizontal rectangle. The correct size is 1280 x 960 pixel)

[Guest guru]

Forgive me, Al, I did not yet read your reply to Marianne when I posted my answer... But I think we agree!

[Ken Cox]

Tom

Looked great on my 19" monitor set at 800/600 32 bit -- filled the screen

with you having enabled the keys i was able to pause the views to study your style

-- noticed that you got the horizon level -- you must share you method of getting it level --

too bad you couldn't have put smiles on the old men tho'

ken

[Guest guru]

Please Ken, set your screen at 1280 x 960, and tell us your impressions.

[Tomuk]

Alrobin,guru…

Thank you for your advice, as I am not very technical minded in these matters and I find your advice invaluable, it’s true I do use the fit to screen option, in fact I think I have used it in every sequence I have made, not anymore!!.

As to setting your monitor to 1280 x 960, I was under the impression at this resolution everything on screen; in particular text would be too small to read, am I also wrong in this matter?

Finally, to Guru, am I right in thinking that if you size your images:

1024x768 with a resolution of 72, your photos, (on a monitor set to 1024x768) would be viewed as the author intended? I.e.: full screen (and sharp).

Tom.

[Tomuk]

Ken.

It’s all very basic stuff, don’t use a wide angle lens with a focal length shorter than 28mm as this will course curvature, use a tripod in low light situations and

“Look through your view finder”.

Tom.

[Ken Cox]

well that is why my Blad SWC had a level on it eh:)

ken

[Tomuk]

Ken.

Who’s a lucky guy, my 903 doesn’t come with a level, but who needs a level when we have a view finder.

Tom.

[alrobin]

As to setting your monitor to 1280 x 960, I was under the impression at this resolution everything on screen; in particular text would be too small to read, am I also wrong in this matter?

Hi, Tom,

If you have a large monitor, and good eyesight, you can read text at 1280 x 960 pixels. I use a 21-inch monitor, and quite often use this resolution for detailed spreadsheet or photoshop work, especially when I need a lot of space for many different windows open at a time.

Look at it this way - pixels are pixels, whatever monitor they are viewed on. If you have a 21-inch monitor set at 1280 pixels, provided the pixel spacing is the same, the text should be just as easy to see as on a monitor half that width at 640 pixels.

One other point, the "72 dpi" you referred to does not have any significance when you are dealing with images on a screen or projected. This is meaningful only if you are printing the image. It's best to think only in pixels. Talking about 72 dpi in the context of screen images is a little like telling the cop who pulled you over for speeding that you were only travelling at 128 km per hour at 72 deg F.

[ronwil]

Tom

I use the same settings as yourself for all my sequences as they are intended for projection. I certainly don't propose to move my projection unit backwards and forwards to fit the screen. I can't believe it will do the computer part of the unit much good moving it whilst it is running. As I have said on previous occasions I believe that the majority of PTE users in the UK have graduated from the traditional twin slide projector presentations. "Chacun a son gout" - everyone to his taste!

Good luck

Ron [uK]

[think(box)]

You're right, Marianne. I too made some test with Tom's "Nerja". At 1280 x 960 the pictures fill the screen, and hence seem less sharp, because they are enlarged by an interpolation.

I'm quite sure Tom selected "Fit to screen (Enlarge images to fit screen)"   in "Screen" options: a dangerous choice in my opinion, and useless in general. When the screen resolution is smaller than image size, pictures are always fitted to screen (even if "Fit to screen" is deselected) and there is no loss of sharpness.

Guido, you may speak for yourself in that quote, but not for everyone. Fit to screen (Enlarge images to fit screen) is a very well done feature in PicturesToExe that is harmless if the screen setting and image size match. And when a small amount of enlargement is performed to fit the screen, this can be a very much welcomed function. Perhaps for you that PTE feature is useless because you always size your images for an exact screen size. Your way is not the only way. Further, "Fit to screen" is not "dangerous", and is certainly not "useless", as you describe it "in general".

I know many people who are in their elder years, who appreciate very much when various precious family photos of all sizes and image file aspect ratios are enlarged FULLSCREEN on a large screen monitor so that with their less than perfect eyesight they can actually see peoples' faces and enjoy the sight. The slight smoothing loss in that case is totally invisible and irrelevant to their viewing experience. And for many people with perfect eyesight, that enlargement smoothing error is very slight and is not important. Often it is the right tradeoff between how much time is spent in image preparation and the quality of slideshow viewing experience.

PicturesToExe does a very high quality job of enlarging images in real time as they are displayed. It isn't always practical to resample a collection and process for best sharpness and least imperfection, prior to presentation.

There are times when people discussing a topic in this forum give the impression that their way is the only way, and there is no use for any other. I believe we should have full respect for others' creativity and slideshow style. There are many people who create P2E slideshows that do not match the mold "projected" in this forum. To those people, their slideshow may be far superior in their opinion, just as to you, your ideal slideshow is far superior in your opinion.

There are far more ways to make slideshows than what you witness in this forum and in linked sites. The gentleman who made an excellent documentary show recently said in a forum reply that he generally stays out of the forum because everyone has a set way of making shows and his way doesn't match it. When I read that remark I celebrated that someone had the guts to say so.

Given that I do not fit any one specific "style mold", you can expect that I will speak out sometimes when I sense a limiting, misleading or alienating tone. I hope that you can now understand why your generalization resulted in this response, regarding usage styles for this very fine software.

EDITED - REMARKS ADDED IN RESPONSE TO THE POST IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING, BY AL:

Bill,

In all respects, I think you are getting a little carried away here.    

For myself, if I choose to create a show with images of say 800 x 600 pixels, I don't want people blowing them up to 1280 x 960, as they would look terrible!    Apparently Tom feels the same way after the reaction he got from Marianne.

We're not saying don't provide the option in PTE, just don't use it!    

My response: Al, you are telling us that you do it your way, you don't want anyone having the ability to display a slideshow their own way, and it is your way or the highway. You are saying the same thing Guido said - don't use PTE's enlarge image to fit screen feature. This is a generalization based upon how you (and some others for sure) use PTE that excludes the valid ways that anyone else may choose to use the software. For the purpose and style of show you are discussing, your advice is relevant. Not for all.

I will be very direct in regards to my point about the "Enlarge to fit screen" PTE/P2E feature. I use it. I use it for MANY shows (I use multiple slideshow styles, in both sync and non-sync). It works very well. Resampling and resizing can consume more space on a CD and takes time and care. It is a tradeoff that show developers can make, to choose to have all images fit screen regardless of settings or image size, whether smaller, same, or larger than current screen setting. And they don't have to spend time processing images. But if they let it be known in the forum they will have to deal with the style biases....

Al, this narrow-minded view of the "right way" is why some people choose to not share their work with the many who read the forum. I would like to see participation from everyone, and recognition of the talents and styles that anyone may choose.

[alrobin]

I know many people who are in their elder years, who appreciate very much when various precious family photos of all sizes and image file aspect ratios are enlarged FULLSCREEN on a large screen monitor so that with their less than perfect eyesight they can actually see peoples' faces and enjoy the sight.

Bill,

With all respect, I think you are getting a little carried away here.

How many people in their elder years do you know who usually have their monitors set at larger than a resolution of 800 x 600, which is more than adequate for viewing the shows posted on the "Cottage" without resizing? So, in these cases it's a "moot point".

And, for their own shows, if they want to show them at a larger size on a high-res monitor, then they can always create them at that size.

For myself, if I choose to create a show with images of say 800 x 600 pixels, I don't want people blowing them up to 1280 x 960, as they would look terrible! Apparently Tom feels the same way after the reaction he got from Marianne.

We're not saying don't provide the option in PTE, just don't use it!

[Ken Cox]

Guido, my monitor only lists

1280/1024

1024/768

1600/1200

800/600

640/480

XP does not easily display 640/480

my ATI all in wonder does not show 1280/960 [ possibly it is a euro format?] nor does it show 640/480

when i set my res at 1024/768, the images on the screen negate the reason for buying a 19" monitor -- was the best move i ever made -- my original 15" was set at 640/480 with the win 3.1 install, when i graduated to win95 i set the screen to 800/640 -- took a bit to get used to it but i did. when the 15" was on its last legs, rather than go 17" which was the norm i paid the premium and i opted for 19" --saved my eyes.

The shows i do make are all windowed 799/519 -- i do not have any complaints from people that have them and they have laptops as well as normal monitors. I have access to the all the computers in the shop i deal with and the shows always perform the way i made them -- the only exception is when i have put an oddball fault in the original show it does not show as it is not installed on the particular system. I have found that sticking to the KISS principle avoids a lot of problems. Granted my stuff is boring but i have a lot of fun making them and the intended audience enjoys them.

ken

[alrobin]

Ken,

My Voodoo 3000 can handle umpteen settings at both 3/4 and 4/5 ratios (including 1280 x 1024).

[Ken Cox]

how bout usin some of dat voodoo to get rid of jean

ken

[alrobin]

I'm tryin', I'm tryin"!!

[Marianne]

Hi,

I never intended for you all to get angry at each other . It's just that because I'm starting, I look very careful at what others make and hope to achieve a level I for myself can live with because I am a little ambitious and like to make beautiful things . It is indeed a matter of taste and making choices. But, I think it is useful to hear why other people make their shows the way they do. Usually it is well thoughtover, so for me it is part of the learning process to read how you all think about it.

Anyway, I have an Iiyama 22 inch screen with (according to the manual) a recommended resolution of 1280 / 1024 at 85Hz. I've never noticed my squares to be rectangle... and I don't have problems with text being too small. By the way, I have glasses, so it's not that my eyesight is extremely sharp.

But, correct me when I'm wrong, when you want to project your slideshow to a large screen, as I intent to do with my next show, then you can use the fit to screen option. But what size do you make your original pictures then? Will 1024 x 768 be large enough?

The show I just finished had about 100 slides, synchronized to a mp3 of about 12 minutes. But when I tested it on other systems slower than mine, it did give some problems. For example less than 600 Ghz will not play the show, even not when installed to the harddisk! The file is 23,2 mb. I compressed within Photoshop at a level of 8. Pictures are about 220 kb in size.

So I still have the question: How does everyone present shows with splendid sharp photographs and still use jpegs?

Marianne

(who is sorry to have risen an argument between forummembers)

[Tomuk]

Marianne.

As most digital projectors have a max resolution of 1024x768 it would be pointless creating your shows at a higher setting.

As to your problem with unsharp jpegs, the problem could be twofold:

If you are using a digital camera set to fine to take your photos, remember that they are already compressed as jpegs in camera; over jpegging an image will soften it.

As previously said in the posts above, if your show was produced at 1024x768 and you have your screen set at a higher setting then the image will appear to be unsharp.

Tom.

[LumenLux]

I'll just say - I did not understand anyone to say or even imply that there is only a single "right" way. I just appreciate learning what people find useful for their purpose. If we become over-sensitive to perceived "attitude", it will indeed limit the comments that are made in this forum. I dare say that there is always good to be learned from opinions as well as from facts. My humble conclusion: keep up the good work and the sharing.

(Sorry for the bumbled attempt of editing this message for points of emphasis. )

- Is it better now, Bob? I manually corrected the wrong tags.