1920 x 1080

[Peter Coles]

I have made one or two Sequences recently with the format 1920 x 1080, but they are played either on my computer which is in a 4 x 3 format or on my projector which is 1024 x 768.

The pngs which form movement passing through the 1920 x 1080 frame show in the black areas above and below the letter-box frame. Can this be prevented with some button within PTE or do I need to make a black mask. If the latter is true then please advise me on the simplest way of doing so.

I expect that when played on a projector 1980 x 1080 the problem does not occur but as my stuff is shown on different systems, I do need to ensure that such distractions do not appear before any audience.

Also, recently I showed some 4 x 3 format Sequences, on a 1400 x 1050 projector and one or two of the frames were still 1024 x 768 within a frame of 1400 x 1050. The owner of the projector did the projections and I did not wish to appear to be very critical. The 1024 x 768 images were projected smaller than the 1400 x 1050 images, so making a bit of a mess of the whole Sequence (well for me, anyway!) Others may have drifted off by then, as no-one commented adversly afterwards !!!!

Please advise.

Peter Coles

[fh1805]

Peter,

Because my sequences are seen mostly as projected sequences using my own projector I make them at 1024x768. However, I have dabbled with the 1920x1080 format (primarily to understand the compositional implications going from a 3:2 original image to a 16:9 crop). When I used PNG files in animation I built a mask image that I applied to every slide. I created that mask in Photoshop. You would need to make a mask that was 4:3 aspect with a width of 1920 (which I think means an image that is 1920x1440).

Assuming my maths is correct proceed as follows in Photoshop:

- Create a new image that will have a transparent base and that is sized at 1920x1440 pixels

- Set the foreground colour to black

- Use the Paint Bucket to fill this image with Black

- Create a second new image also based on transparent and sized at 1920x1080

- Switch the foreground colour to white

- Use the Paint Bucket to fill this image with white

- Display these two images cascaded

- Select the Move tool and drag the white image onto the black image

- Select the combined image and fill the display area with it

- Adjust the position of the white image if needed until it sits squarely across the middle of the black image

- Select the white layer and use the magic wand to select all the white pixels

- Hide the white layer

- Select the black layer

- Use Edit...Cut to remove the area that was occupied by the white pixels

You should now have an image with two black bands and a transparent centre. Save this as a PNG file to preserve its transparency. Add this as the topmost object on every slide. Create a fresh exe file and re-test on all your equipment that it does the job that you want. I'm fairly sure that it will.

Come back with more questions if needed. I'll be around most of the day today.

regards,

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

Peter

Try ticking the box in the Project Options Screen tab that says Fixed size slide (in pixels) and make sure the size of the slides boxes reflect the 1920*1080 size of your show.

[thedom]

Assuming my maths is correct proceed as follows in Photoshop:

- Create a new image that will have a transparent base and that is sized at 1920x1440 pixels

- Set the foreground colour to black

- Use the Paint Bucket to fill this image with Black

- Create a second new image also based on transparent and sized at 1920x1080

- Switch the foreground colour to white

- Use the Paint Bucket to fill this image with white

- Display these two images cascaded

- Select the Move tool and drag the white image onto the black image

- Select the combined image and fill the display area with it

- Adjust the position of the white image if needed until it sits squarely across the middle of the black image

- Select the white layer and use the magic wand to select all the white pixels

- Hide the white layer

- Select the black layer

- Use Edit...Cut to remove the area that was occupied by the white pixels

If the purpose is to create a mask, I think it can be done quicker.

- Create a new transparent image sized at 1920x1080 pixels

- select this layer

- Change the canvas size to 1920x1440

- inverse the selection

- use the Paint Bucket to fill the selection with black

I don't have Photoshop installed on the PC I am using right now. I can't confirm I'm right.

[thedom]

Try ticking the box in the Project Options Screen tab that says Fixed size slide (in pixels) and make sure the size of the slides boxes reflect the 1920*1080 size of your show.

Hi Barry, I have never tried but what happens if you tick this option with 1920x1080 and :

- your pictures are 1024 px width

- your screen is 1024 px width

I guess PTE will make an upscale to 1920x 1080 and your graphic card will make a downscale to 1024 px ?

It would mean two changes of resolution and an increase of quality ?

Just curious to know.

[fh1805]

If the purpose is to create a mask, I think it can be done quicker.

- Create a new transparent image sized at 1920x1080 pixels

- select this layer

- Change the canvas size to 1920x1440

- inverse the selection

- use the Paint Bucket to fill the selection with black

I don't have Photoshop installed on the PC I am using right now. I can't confirm I'm right.

Dom,

Just tried your way with Photoshop Elements 7. Had to paint the initial layer with a solid colour before PSE would accept the Select All and then hold that selection through the Canvas Size increase. I couldn't get it to hold onto the Select All of the original transparent layer.

regards,

Peter

[Peter Coles]

Peter

Try ticking the box in the Project Options Screen tab that says Fixed size slide (in pixels) and make sure the size of the slides boxes reflect the 1920*1080 size of your show.

[Peter Coles]

Thanks, Barry.

This seems to have worked OK on my computer.

I expect it to be OK on projectors too , but I have yet to try this.

It does seem that I do not need to make a mask.

Many thanks again for the speedy replies.

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

There really is no problem in making a slide show at 1920*1200 or 1920*1080 so that you can see it beautifully on your own large widescreen PC Monitor. PTE will then handle the downsize via a 1024*768 monitor or a projector perfectly. I do this all the time for demo purposes and I have mentioned this a few times before.

In fact many of you have downloaded some of my slide shows that are made at 1920*1200 and I guess some of you have 1024*768 screens and some 1280*1024 and they play OK right. The top ten slide shows on this page are all 1920*1200 bar Forever Floating to be free http://www.beckhamdi...digslidesw4.htm

If you're into wild animation and make images much larger than 1920*1200 for those zooms or pans that go on forever. Then you can introduce some moire effect if you're not careful because you're cramming a large file into a smaller resolution, but I have managed to avoid that without difficulty

it's the best of all worlds in my view to do this. You get probably the best looking slide show you can get when the show fills a 27in (or larger) wide screen monitor.

If you're a 1024*768 monitor user there will come a time when you scale up to a larger monitor and then those slide shows look a bit lost on the larger flat screens, not the be all and end all I admit, but a good big one will beat a good little one every day of the week.

1920*1200 fits better when made into a DVD and of course 1920*1080 fits perfectly for flat screen TV's of course.

The slide shows can be entered into competitions and shown on a 1024*768 projector without any problems. I have done that and won the competition and the "Experts" and viewers had no idea they were looking at a slide show made at 1920*1200

_______________________

On another tack, these same AV "Experts" are suggesting that AV rules next year state what resolution the slide show should be made at (Yes....you have guessed it 1024*768) and they are even stating what jpeg compression setting should be used (Q12). Can anyone tell me why these "Experts" seem to think it is right to lay down rules that cover the creative decisions of the author only? Even if they adopt rules like that, how will they know if I break them? Is it just me getting crankier or is there an army of Camera Club Committees getting their rocks off by coming up with daft restrictive rules that they cannot police anyway.

Is it only me who feels that if the "Experts" don't know that themselves, perhaps they should stay well away from making any rules at all

[Maureen]

Hi Barry

Who are your "experts" ?

If they're interfering with the author's creativity they can't be an "expert"

What's your definition of an expert?

I remember telling you about PTE & this Forum & then telling you not to quote 72 dpi......

No one is really an expert, as knowledge is too vast and no-one knows everything.

Some make mistakes, some more than others but that's how we learn.

I know some competition organisers have an odd way of thinking and want you to size everyone's work to fit their boxes!

They even expect you to recreate an AV to run on some very out of date computer specs and old projectors because they want to run a competition but don't realise they are the ones who should change - their own equipment if they want to run any competitions and show up to date work.

Anyone seriously running an AV comp should ensure they know their "onions" & AVs and have the correct equipment to run the most up to date AVs.

If you're doing it for fun don't run a competition just show and share.

The Camera Clubs I visit fortunately don't have daft rules. Maybe it's a strange Aussie rule where you live now?

But then I've said for several years now that Festivals & competitions should be using full HD equipment by now.

[dpletts]

Well said, Maureen.

I am not an expert. I just enjoy making slideshows - for me - and I like to share them, too. I find it a superb way of combining graphics and sound.

I wouldn't dream of entering a competition; but then I don't belong to a club, either. Not any! I think Barry's comments provide a good hint as to why.

Bye the way, I love seeing the wonderful slideshows members of this forum produce! Thanks to you all.

Cheers,

David P

[Ken Cox]

Maureen/David

well said

ken

[Barry Beckham]

Maureen

An "Expert" is someone who doesn't feel the need to drum up rules where none need to be applied. They should also understand that stating that Jpegs must be saved at Q12 will not, as they say

Assist in providing smooth transitions and projection of entries and avoid large file sizes.

As you can gether I am sick of stupid rules being applied to photography, especially those that can't be policed. Rules for the sake of rules. To challenge some of them I can attend a meeting, but I would have to do a 140k trip just try to make them see sense.

[denwell]

Again - well said Barry

It seems to me that these 'officials' need to justify their existance on the 'Committee' by trying to appear more knowledgable than they obviously are concerning the technicalities, whilst disregarding creative freedom and practicalities.

I suppose they are trying to create a 'level playing field' for all, but the more rules and impediments there are will surely discourage participation - it would for me!

[Barry Beckham]

Now there is another humdinger Denwell, the level playing field.

It seems we live in a world (especially Club committees) where we must NEVER do anything that might discourage some poor sole, so we end up with a huge list of competition categories that remind me of buses in any world city. You have to live there 20 years before you understand them. Apparently some people when they enter a competition and don't win, get discouraged, run away and hide and that's the Clubs fault...............?

Competing with the best should inspire and if they are discouraged so easily, then they have chosen the wrong hobby:P

[Peter Coles]

Maureen/David

well said

ken

When I asked my straight-forward question. I got a straight-forward answer. (well, two actually)

These were very helpful.

I did not imagine that so much other stuff could be attached to the simple question and answers.

"Expert's?" !!!

I like the definition: "An expert is a drip under pressure" !!!

Most real experts listen well and write and speak infrequently.

I try to be an expert listener (and reader of the PTE wisdom on this site).

Peter

[Barry Beckham]

Peter

"An expert is a drip under pressure" !!!

Not heard that before, very funny

Here is one sent to me today that I thought was good too

While sewing a cut on the hand of a 75 year old Aussie farmer, who's hand was caught in the gate while working cattle, the doctor struck up a conversation with the old man. Eventually the topic got around to Kevin Rudd and his role as our Prime Minister. The old farmer said, 'Well, you know, in my opinion, Rudd is a 'Post Turtle''. Not being familiar with the term, the doctor asked him, what a 'post turtle' was. The old farmer said, 'When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'. The old farmer saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued to explain. 'You know he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of dumb bugger put him up there to begin with.

[Ken Cox]

GOOD LAUGHS FOR THE DAY

SEE

Expert. Ex is the Latin word for something that is apart from the main body and spurt is a drip under pressure. An expert is a drip under pressure and out of the mainstream. Here's a picture of such a drip.

http://www.amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/cooking_glossary.html

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=%22An+expert+is+a+drip+under+pressure%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22An+expert+is+a+drip+under+pressure%22+&gs_rfai=&fp=3b5f3810dd6b35d3

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eric_tank/2678855518/

KEN

[8321]

'X' is the unknown quantity. Can't remember the 'pert' bit but along the lines of a little squirt.

BTW Rudd is no longer PM of Australia. News seems to travel at tortoise speed in the outback.

Jeff

[Peter Coles]

GOOD LAUGHS FOR THE DAY

SEE

Expert. Ex is the Latin word for something that is apart from the main body and spurt is a drip under pressure. An expert is a drip under pressure and out of the mainstream. Here's a picture of such a drip.

http://www.amazingribs.com/tips_and_technique/cooking_glossary.html

http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&q=%22An+expert+is+a+drip+under+pressure%22+&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=%22An+expert+is+a+drip+under+pressure%22+&gs_rfai=&fp=3b5f3810dd6b35d3

http://www.flickr.com/photos/eric_tank/2678855518/

KEN

I continue to be amazed at what gets added to a simple question and answer.

However, being an expert at winning International AV Awards (currently well over 200 of them!), I do welcome putting myself in front of these other "experts". I accept their expertise; I play their games; I read their rules; I do approve of such things as they provide me with deadlines. I don't really take Competitions all that seriously, but when I win an Award, I treat it as some sort of bonus. Sometimes, you see, THEY do get it right !!!!!!!!!!!!! Then I approve of these 'ere experts !!!! From time to time some of these "experts" decide I am an "expert"; then I get to do what they do.

I don't mind !!!!

Peter

[davegee]

Hi Peter,

I have a (serious) question for you.

Provided that a PTE EXE file complied with all other rules regarding FILE size etc how would the people running a (for instance 1024x768) competition know that it had been made using 1620x1080 images in a 1620x1080 "Fit to Screen" mode show?

Secondly, would it make any difference?

My point is: Why stipulate the resolution of a show these days - is there any point?

The same argument applies to single image competitions (IMHO).

DG

[Barry Beckham]

DG

That is exactly my point, they can't tell and it's rules for the sake of rules. I entered an AV comp last year and got a first place and nobody was aware that it was a 1920*1200 show and why should they be. I will enter the same sized show this year, but next year, if these proposed rules changes go through I will be outside those rules, but how will they know.

I think I know what may be behind it in the case I mention and I don't mean this as a knock at PSG. Many entries where made with PSG, many were animated and they did not come across very well. The laptop they were played on, whatever it was, couldn't cope. I made a daft suggestion that perhaps next year we could use a good powerful desktop rather than a laptop and it might help these shows to display a little better, but it was not considered a serious request. I think the idea may be to reduce the file size to make them run better, but then why specify Q12 jpeg compression that will push the size up again.

[Peter Coles]

Hi Peter,

I have a (serious) question for you.

Provided that a PTE EXE file complied with all other rules regarding FILE size etc how would the people running a (for instance 1024x768) competition know that it had been made using 1620x1080 images in a 1620x1080 "Fit to Screen" mode show?

Secondly, would it make any difference?

My point is: Why stipulate the resolution of a show these days - is there any point?

The same argument applies to single image competitions (IMHO).

I'm no expert on resolution of projectors. However, I imagine that the format of the projector used would matter; if it is designed to show 1920 x 1080 images and the screen is in this format, then any Sequences produced in any 4 x 3 format would be at a disadvantage as they would not use the whole of the screen.

Most UK and European Festivals seem to have used the 4 x 3 format and until recently have specified 1024 x 768. The first time the RPS tried a few Digital Sequences in their International, there was a mixture of 800 x 600 and 1024 x 768. Last year the RPS Nationals used a 1400 x 1050 projector and I wondered if there would be any problem with pngs, so I asked one of my Clubs if they would bring a 1400 x 1050 projector to my home for me to try a few Sequences. There was no problem with any 4 x 3 format Sequences; in fact it was difficult to tell which were 1024 x 768 and which were 1400 x 1050. I did wonder what would happen to the pngs within a 3 x 2 format Sequence, but no one complained at the event. Interesting enough it was a 1920 x 1080 Sequence which won the event overall. I had two entries; one made with 1024 x 768 and the other 1400 x 1050. The 1024 x 768 Sequence won an Award; the 1400 x 1050 did not !!!

Peter

DG

[Barry Beckham]

I'm no expert on resolution of projectors. However, I imagine that the format of the projector used would matter; if it is designed to show 1920 x 1080 images and the screen is in this format, then any Sequences produced in any 4 x 3 format would be at a disadvantage as they would not use the whole of the screen.

At the present time isn’t it more likely to be the other way around? A 1024*768/ 1400*1050 projector being used to play a 1920*1080 /1920*1200 sequence. However, even if it were the way you suggest why is that a disadvantage? With a projected image the size difference isn’t going to have much impact. The judges are still going to see a large image on screen and any judge who marks down a great sequence because it was not as big as the preceding one should not be asked to judge again.

Most UK and European Festivals seem to have used the 4 x 3 format and until recently have specified 1024 x 768.

Isn't that because projectors were mostly 1024*768 resolution and slide show software of a few years ago could not cope with larger images anyway. That isn’t the case anymore as we see with PTE, which can handle far larger images and we can see the monitor resolution/format trend by looking at the ongoing forum poll.

I think the biggest issue by far for those enthusiasts who create images at the size they want them to project (I guess that includes most enthusiasts) are the settings in the Project Options > Screen Tab > Size of slide and the Fixed Size of Slide (in pixels) That is what I set first of all when making a sequence and then projection on any projector/screen resolution will be fine. Those settings lock in your selections for resolution and display size and no animation will be seen outside of those settings. I think this is one of the best changes made in PTE.

For the future, I suppose it will be possible for another issue to crop up for those who create a sequence at 1024*768 and then have it displayed on a projector running 1400*1050. While it will not affect the format, unless those settings are set correctly in the Screen tab the slide show may be enlarged from its 1024 size to 1400 with a slight loss of image quality.

Perhaps the major AV events of the future may have to state the intended projection resolution in the original invitation to enter?

It doesn’t alter the fact that the size the slide show is made and the Jpg quality settings are the choice of the author and have no place in any rules.

[Peter Coles]

I'm no expert on resolution of projectors. However, I imagine that the format of the projector used would matter; if it is designed to show 1920 x 1080 images and the screen is in this format, then any Sequences produced in any 4 x 3 format would be at a disadvantage as they would not use the whole of the screen.

At the present time isnt it more likely to be the other way around? A 1024*768/ 1400*1050 projector being used to play a 1920*1080 /1920*1200 sequence. However, even if it were the way you suggest why is that a disadvantage? With a projected image the size difference isnt going to have much impact. The judges are still going to see a large image on screen and any judge who marks down a great sequence because it was not as big as the preceding one should not be asked to judge again.

Most UK and European Festivals seem to have used the 4 x 3 format and until recently have specified 1024 x 768.

Isn't that because projectors were mostly 1024*768 resolution and slide show software of a few years ago could not cope with larger images anyway. That isnt the case anymore as we see with PTE, which can handle far larger images and we can see the monitor resolution/format trend by looking at the ongoing forum poll.

I think the biggest issue by far for those enthusiasts who create images at the size they want them to project (I guess that includes most enthusiasts) are the settings in the Project Options > Screen Tab > Size of slide and the Fixed Size of Slide (in pixels) That is what I set first of all when making a sequence and then projection on any projector/screen resolution will be fine. Those settings lock in your selections for resolution and display size and no animation will be seen outside of those settings. I think this is one of the best changes made in PTE.

For the future, I suppose it will be possible for another issue to crop up for those who create a sequence at 1024*768 and then have it displayed on a projector running 1400*1050. While it will not affect the format, unless those settings are set correctly in the Screen tab the slide show may be enlarged from its 1024 size to 1400 with a slight loss of image quality.

Perhaps the major AV events of the future may have to state the intended projection resolution in the original invitation to enter?

It doesnt alter the fact that the size the slide show is made and the Jpg quality settings are the choice of the author and have no place in any rules.

I certainly agree with your last point, Barry.

"The judges are still going to see a large image on screen and any judge who marks down a great sequence because it was not as big as the preceding one should not be asked to judge again."

The folk who choose Judges are not always even as sensible as Judges !!!

Rarely, these days, is there a "bad" Sequence shown at any International. Judges, on the whole, seem to do their job quite well, and they seem to favour those Sequences which have used all aspects of the medium well: music, words images and transitions; in other words, getting their "message" across exceptionally well. Things which distract from such perfection are those which get lower marks. I do recall in the "bad old days" 800 x 600 Sequences being regarded as "distractions from perfection", when they did not fill the whole screen. Any screen which obviously has a set size, must have a maximum size of image and consequently a maximum number of pixels which can be seen on that screen. Of course, an excellent Sequence is still excellent if it does not quite fit the screen, but at the end of the showing of say 100 Sequences, some Sequences do seem more excellent than others. Many things can affect the judgement of such excellence and a lot of these are, of course, subjective, so no wonder Judges do get it "wrong" most of the time !!!!

If we notice Judges getting it "wrong" in not selecting "our" work, eventually we don't bother entering such events and just moan that most Judges are no good get it "wrong" most of the time becuase they are not proper experts !!!! If they were really good Judges and proper experts, then you and I would win ALL the time and that would be very very boring.