What to Do With Video?

[Lin Evans]

Soon, Wnsoft will have beta 1 of PTE version 7 available, and we have all been anxiously awaiting this. One of the main new features will be the "drop-in video clip" option. But, what will we do and how will we implement this feature in our slideshows?

How about some discussion about ways to use this new feature?

Will we simply incorporate a few video clips in our shows?

Will we use a video clip as a background to display still slides on?

Let's have some discussions about novel ways to incorporate this new and exciting feature!

Best regards,

Lin

[goddi]

Soon, Wnsoft will have beta 1 of PTE version 7 available, and we have all been anxiously awaiting this. One of the main new features will be the "drop-in video clip" option. But, what will we do and how will we implement this feature in our slideshows?

How about some discussion about ways to use this new feature?

Will we simply incorporate a few video clips in our shows?

Will we use a video clip as a background to display still slides on?

Let's have some discussions about novel ways to incorporate this new and exciting feature!

Best regards,

Lin

=========================

Lin,

I don't have the illusion of being able to come up with something 'novel' when video drop-ins will be available. On many vacation trips in the past, I have shot video along with still shots. I have converted the Hi8 video to AVI files. At this point, I only plan to do my regular slide shows and then intersperse the video sequences where it will add something to the still images. Or maybe, if possible, put a small window running some video sequences in a box next to the slide show. It is hard now to envision what to do and what will be possible. I will, I am sure, get great ideas from the more creative guys in this Forum. My big concern is the final size of the slide show once any video is added.

Thanks.

Gary

[Lin Evans]

Hi Gary,

Video is intensive as far as size is concerned, especially if using HD video. As you know, our executable code creates the majority of the images for intermediate steps in animation on the fly, so exe file sizes are only the combination of the original image plus the code to instruct the computer in creating the myriad intermediate steps and effects for the displays and the associated sound files, etc.

Video must contain a "hard copy" of each and every "step" so that for a 30 frame per second video we are looking at storing at least 1800 separate images for each minute of video clip. How "large" these files get then depends primarily on the size in pixel dimensions of each frame times the number of frames in the entire clip. So if we only plan to run a relatively tiny frame size video, we can conserve space by not "resizing" the clip in PTE but rather using a video editor to greatly downsize the video clip dimensions. the difference in overall memory storage will essentially be whatever the difference is between the memory requirements for a single frame times the number of overall frames. Of course compression algorithms (codecs) also play into this scenario. Uncompressed video can be huge, while some amazing codecs can greatly help with overall files size control.

The other thing (good news) which we can happily attribute to the great development team at Wnsoft, is that if we use the same video clip multiple times, there is no penalty.for an executable slideshow beyond the "initial" hit in terms of overhead. For example, if one were to choose a 720p HD clip of say 12 seconds in length, it might equal about 10 megabytes in overhead. If one were to use that clip as a background for 100 images, the total size increase from using it for the background for a single image is insignificant. It will still only add about 10 megabytes to overall storage. Just as using the same PNG or jpg over and again adds nothing extra for additional use.

So we need to plan our shows using video very carefully. That's why I believe a discussion about what users might want to do with video is important.

Best regards,

Lin

[goddi]

Hi Gary,

...So we need to plan our shows using video very carefully. That's why I believe a discussion about what users might want to do with video is important.

Best regards,

Lin

===========================

Lin...

I wonder how this will affect us putting our slide shows with video on Beechbrook or MediaFire to share our work....

Gary

[Lin Evans]

Hi Gary,

At first, I suspect there will be a deluge of video enhanced PTE shows; at least until the novelty wears off. This will stress the bandwidth of Beechbrook and perhaps require users to "chip-in" and help pay for the additional storage and costs. For MediaFire, it may put some users "over the top" so that they have to pay rather than use the free upload features.

It will also tax the patience of those who want to download new slideshows, because time constraints will play a major role in the decision to download or not. That's a good reason, I believe, for trying to use this new feature judiciously,.We need to use some restraint in our zeal to quickly use this neat new capability.

Best regards,

Lin

===========================

Lin...

I wonder how this will affect us putting our slide shows with video on Beechbrook or MediaFire to share our work....

Gary

[davegee]

It will be a struggle to get them under the 20Mb barrier then?

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

It will be 'if" people insist on using high resolution video for more than a few seconds. On the other hand, if the video's are downsized to VGA or smaller, it will be possible to have longer clips. I suppose experimentation will be the best way to proceed.

It would be possible to have a single clip of say 10 megabyte size (about 13 seconds, for 720P) used once or repeatedly as a background which would still leave about 10 meg for stills. But the problems are going to rapidly multiply if users want to show 30 seconds of 1080P or 1080I and say 100 high resolution photos. Of course unless one is doing deep zooms, there is absolutely zero reasons for an original jpg to be larger than two megapixels (1080x1920 = 2,073,600 pixels). Anything larger than this for a non deep zoom in is wasting resources. We can also conserve resources by trimming away all excess transparency possible around PNG objects. A couple years ago I created two virtually identical puzzle demos - one using full sized PNG transparencies for convenience in object placement, and another with all the excess transparency removed. Of course the one with transparency minimized played on almost all systems smoothly, while the one with tull transparency rectangle to facilitate image placement was difficult for many who had less than optimal video cards. JPD was a master at crafting shows with minimal resource use. We will all have to become like him if we want to have our cake and eat it too.

Best regards,

Lin

It will be a struggle to get them under the 20Mb barrier then?

DG

[orizaba]

We can also conserve resources by trimming away all excess transparency possible around PNG objects.

Hi Lin,

I never used PNG in my shows, always JPEG, because I never knew the PNG advantages.

But as I can see, may be PNG has some vs JPEG. Is it so? What about quality?

So, I think I understood your above comment: a PNG object to be inserted in a show must be framed before applied, is it? And this turns any framing unavailable in PTE, I suppose?

What do you mean by "trimming excess transparency"? Where to trim, in PTE (how?) or in previous photo-editing? This trimming, again, makes me believe any framing in PTE is unavailable, trimmed PNG is final.

I would thank you for some comments on this subject, if possible.

Best regards,

Jose

[Lin Evans]

Hi Jose,

Since PNG files are uncompressed, they have full quality just as an 8 bit TIF format might. The "advantage" which PNG has is that you can have transparency. For example, when you create a transparent layer in your editing program such as Photoshop, then "paste" a jpg image on top of the transparent layer, you have the ability to use various tools such as the "eraser" tool to erase any parts of the image which you don't want to show. Let's take an example: let's say you have a 1024x768 pixel jpg file which consists of a portrait of someone's face and they are standing on a street corner with buildings and traffic in the background. Let's then say you want to use only the "portrait" of the person and you want it to appear somewhere on a different background without the original background. You can simply "erase" the background using the eraser tool or select and delete tools to remove everything "except" the person in the picture. So all the traffic, buildings, etc., are now gone and you have left only the person surrounded by what appears to be a "checkerboard" appearance which is the way various editing programs portray transparency. So if you were to "copy" then "paste" this on top of some other image - such as perhaps a woodlands or mountain scene, you would have this "portrait" appearing with a different background.

The important thing is that all that "checkerboard" portion of the transparency is still data, even though you can see through it to the layer beneath (which you pasted it on). So if you use the crop tool or the selection tool then crop this transparency portion which looks like a checkerboard so that only the smallest rectangle of "checkerboard" remains surrounding the portrait, you have effectively removed a great deal of the file size. It's unimportant if you "flatten" the result in your editing program because this removes all unnecessary transparency and makes the whole image into a one layer whole. But if you are moving or animating the transparency over an existing opaque jpg, then cropping away excess "checkerboard" greatly affects file size.

A few years ago, I created a slideshow "puzzle" with about thirty pieces which I then moved all over the screen and rotated, etc., Each of these puzzle pieces consisted of the visible puzzle "plus" the full transparent "checkerboard" background so that each was a file of about 1024x768 pixels. So to make the 30 piece "puzzle," there were thirty uncompressed PNG images, each 1024x768. If you do the math, that equals 1024x768x30 or 23,592,960 bytes. This for one single "image" which was only 1024x768 pixels in appearance on the screen. Over 20 megabytes of data. Next I used the crop tool on each individual puzzle "piece" and cut away all the excess "checkerboard" transparency surrounding each puzzle piece. The overall image when the puzzle pieces were "assembled" now was only marginally larger than the 1024x768 area it occupied on the screen. I had effectively reduced the total size of the puzzle by about 29 times to less than a megabyte. The trade-off was that to properly "position:" each puzzle piece took lots of time. Using the much "larger" files complete with "all" transparency made it quite simple to "place" the pieces in their proper locations because when each 1024x768 rectangle was properly "centered" on the screen, each puzzle piece assumed it's proper and original position since they were all "cut out" from an original image of the 1024x768 pixel dimensions which was overlayed onto a 1024x768 transparency.

The essence of this is that you can stack "layers" of PNG files with transparency and as long as the "transparency" portion of each layer coincide, you can "see" through any number of layers to whatever is "opaque" on the bottom of the pile. But when you have lots of "tiny" png images, you can lay them beside one another and the fact that small "pieces" of the surrounding transparency overlap has no effect on the "appearance" of the whole.

So whenever you create a PNG file with a transparent layer, if you trim as much of the transparent (checkerboard) away as possible, you will dramatically reduce the file size. A PNG file will "always" be much larger in terms of "storage" than a same dimension JPG file because the JPG file is compressed. Once the files are loaded into memory in your computer, the JPG "expands" to its full uncompressed size. Where the advantage comes in using PNG versus JPG for certain operations is that you can have objects which appear to "float" like animated GIF's. One then might ask why use PNG when you could use GIF with transparency. The answer is that GIF files are limited to 256 colors while PNG files enjoy the full color spectrum.

There are plenty of uses for PNG's, especially for animation. If you saw my little "eagle" fly across the screen, that was an animated GIF, but when you see my snow animations or waterfall animations, those are PNG files with transparency. I hope this makes sense. If there is any part which doesn't, please tell me and I'll try to explain further.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

I never used PNG in my shows, always JPEG, because I never knew the PNG advantages.

But as I can see, may be PNG has some vs JPEG. Is it so? What about quality?

So, I think I understood your above comment: a PNG object to be inserted in a show must be framed before applied, is it? And this turns any framing unavailable in PTE, I suppose?

What do you mean by "trimming excess transparency"? Where to trim, in PTE (how?) or in previous photo-editing? This trimming, again, makes me believe any framing in PTE is unavailable, trimmed PNG is final.

I would thank you for some comments on this subject, if possible.

Best regards,

Jose

[fh1805]

To try and bring this discussion back to Lin's original question: What will we do with video?

My preferred style of AV is that of documentary, and usually with a history theme. This gives me the problem of finding copyright-free historic imagery. IF I can find copyright-free historic video, I'll consider using it (probably in a "drop-in" window overlaying the main slide image). I will not be using any of my own video because I don't have any camera capable of producing video; and I have absolutely no interest in going down that route.

The prospect of having a short video clip running as a "loop" in the background worries me. Because of our evolution as a species, our vision is highly tuned to detect motion. Having, as a species, a poor sense of smell and only moderate hearing, it was the only way we could detect approaching danger. I cannot help but feel that a moving background will be a major visual distraction.

regards,

Peter

[JEB]

Hi Peter, et al,

I sympathise with much of what you say. I do however have a video facility on my camera but have never got round to trying it out (I've only had it for six months!).

I remember a few years ago somebody on the forum, it may have been Dom, demonstrated the use of a “stretched” image being used as a background to the actual image which was set as a frame over the “stretched” image. The “stretched” image was reduced in opacity and set to pan in the background. This was initially very attractive to me and I used it in a sequence. It got slated. Thinking back, my critics were right. I thought I had done it fairly discreetly but I was deluding myself. I had simply got carried away like a novice frequently does with transition effects. I suspect we are likely to be inundated with inappropriate use of video for the foreseeable future.

I too prefer working in the documentary style but, and this is where I think I disagree with you, I suspect there may be many opportunities to use video (discreetly). I would like to think that there may even be an occasion when it could be acceptable to have it running in the background – only covering myself because of a known lingering weakness!

Best regards

John

[orizaba]

Hi Jose,

Since PNG files are uncompressed, they have full quality just as an 8 bit TIF format might. The "advantage" which PNG has is that you can have transparency. For example, when you create a transparent layer in your editing program such as Photoshop, then "paste" a jpg image on top of the transparent layer, you have the ability to use various tools such as the "eraser" tool to erase any parts of the image which you don't want to show. Let's take an example: let's say you have a 1024x768 pixel jpg file which consists of a portrait of someone's face and they are standing on a street corner with buildings and traffic in the background. Let's then say you want to use only the "portrait" of the person and you want it to appear somewhere on a different background without the original background. You can simply "erase" the background using the eraser tool or select and delete tools to remove everything "except" the person in the picture. So all the traffic, buildings, etc., are now gone and you have left only the person surrounded by what appears to be a "checkerboard" appearance which is the way various editing programs portray transparency. So if you were to "copy" then "paste" this on top of some other image - such as perhaps a woodlands or mountain scene, you would have this "portrait" appearing with a different background.

The important thing is that all that "checkerboard" portion of the transparency is still data, even though you can see through it to the layer beneath (which you pasted it on). So if you use the crop tool or the selection tool then crop this transparency portion which looks like a checkerboard so that only the smallest rectangle of "checkerboard" remains surrounding the portrait, you have effectively removed a great deal of the file size. It's unimportant if you "flatten" the result in your editing program because this removes all unnecessary transparency and makes the whole image into a one layer whole. But if you are moving or animating the transparency over an existing opaque jpg, then cropping away excess "checkerboard" greatly affects file size.

A few years ago, I created a slideshow "puzzle" with about thirty pieces which I then moved all over the screen and rotated, etc., Each of these puzzle pieces consisted of the visible puzzle "plus" the full transparent "checkerboard" background so that each was a file of about 1024x768 pixels. So to make the 30 piece "puzzle," there were thirty uncompressed PNG images, each 1024x768. If you do the math, that equals 1024x768x30 or 23,592,960 bytes. This for one single "image" which was only 1024x768 pixels in appearance on the screen. Over 20 megabytes of data. Next I used the crop tool on each individual puzzle "piece" and cut away all the excess "checkerboard" transparency surrounding each puzzle piece. The overall image when the puzzle pieces were "assembled" now was only marginally larger than the 1024x768 area it occupied on the screen. I had effectively reduced the total size of the puzzle by about 29 times to less than a megabyte. The trade-off was that to properly "position:" each puzzle piece took lots of time. Using the much "larger" files complete with "all" transparency made it quite simple to "place" the pieces in their proper locations because when each 1024x768 rectangle was properly "centered" on the screen, each puzzle piece assumed it's proper and original position since they were all "cut out" from an original image of the 1024x768 pixel dimensions which was overlayed onto a 1024x768 transparency.

The essence of this is that you can stack "layers" of PNG files with transparency and as long as the "transparency" portion of each layer coincide, you can "see" through any number of layers to whatever is "opaque" on the bottom of the pile. But when you have lots of "tiny" png images, you can lay them beside one another and the fact that small "pieces" of the surrounding transparency overlap has no effect on the "appearance" of the whole.

So whenever you create a PNG file with a transparent layer, if you trim as much of the transparent (checkerboard) away as possible, you will dramatically reduce the file size. A PNG file will "always" be much larger in terms of "storage" than a same dimension JPG file because the JPG file is compressed. Once the files are loaded into memory in your computer, the JPG "expands" to its full uncompressed size. Where the advantage comes in using PNG versus JPG for certain operations is that you can have objects which appear to "float" like animated GIF's. One then might ask why use PNG when you could use GIF with transparency. The answer is that GIF files are limited to 256 colors while PNG files enjoy the full color spectrum.

There are plenty of uses for PNG's, especially for animation. If you saw my little "eagle" fly across the screen, that was an animated GIF, but when you see my snow animations or waterfall animations, those are PNG files with transparency. I hope this makes sense. If there is any part which doesn't, please tell me and I'll try to explain further.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

As usually, everything is cristal clear for me, thanks so much for such detailed and most usefull report on PNG.

In the meantime, if you want to remove this subject away from this topic I think it would make sense.

One more point about PNG:

PNG allows transparency, etc., but it is heavy in size vs JPEG.

So, why not using JPEG masks, "traditional" home-made JPEG masks, as I use to do?

Homework cutting away what is not to be shown, I think is exactly the same as in PNG, is it not? And size is smaller.

May be I am missing something, and I am only thinking in NO animated objects (like your flying eagle, for example), I am only thinking in "my kind of masks", if you understand. In such case, is there any advantage to use PNG instead of "my mask"?

Regards,

Jose

[fh1805]

Jose,

Compared to simple JPEG or PNG files, the use of masks places a significantly heavier load on the computer's resources. In a sequence I built last year, I tried to do things with masks, but eventually gave up because my system just could not cope with the resource demand. Instead I used JPEGs and PNGs, in combination, to achieve an almost identical end result - and the system ran it as smooth as silk.

This reinforces the points that Lin has been making about each of us having to decide how much video and how big a video to include, bearing in mind the limitations of our own (and other users) systems.

regards,

Peter

[thedom]

As you know, I like effects and animations.

I have no predefined ideas of what I will exactly make with the video feature.

I guess I will use it in a very classic way most of the time but nothing prevents to use it sometimes for special effects when it will be appropriate.

I have to think about it could enhance our creations...

I got the feeling that the difference of taste between people who prefer classic slideshow and those who like animations will increase.

It will probably be very difficult to unify those two profiles.

My guess about the size is that the ones who want to share their AV will use more and more streaming video services like YouTube and Vimeo.

[orizaba]

Jose,

Compared to simple JPEG or PNG files, the use of masks places a significantly heavier load on the computer's resources.

Hi Peter,

Thanks for your notes.

But I just made a small test in my show:

As it is, EXE file is indicated as 180,6 MB.

In one slide (train passing by the window) I replaced the Mask Container by an appropriate "transparent" PNG.

EXE file size increased to 186,8 MB.

In fact, actual "transparent" PNG is 7,27 MB.

Before, Mask (JPEG) was 50,6 KB and respective JPEG foreground (windows) was 1,17 MB, so, both, much less than 7,27 MB.

Do you mean that these sizes have nothing to do with computer's load , but only the processing of "Mask way" puts more load on computer?

Jose

[Barry Beckham]

With the greatest of respect to Igor, adding video to a stills slide show doesn't have the same appeal for me as it does for others, but I have always accepted that PTE should have this facility for those who want it. I have seen video used in PSG , where the output was destined for a DVD and the result on the TV was pretty good. It was an action sequence of cars on a track. There were dramtaic stills of the cars, that cut to fast video taken from very low angle on the cars. The author used a bullet cam stuck to the outside of the car, so the ground was rushing past. That had lots of impact and the mix of video and still worked.

I don't have any need to make DVD's, so I would want to use HD video, so that the quality of the video matches the stills images. As the Dom says I find my appeal leans more towards the classic AV, but I willing to be convinced otherwise. I will see what others do and hope to be inspired by some good ideas. Never say never or you can look a fool.

I just don't fancy small videos moving about the frame in front of stills. I can visualise a shot of still water that fades from a still crisp image to a gentle flow for a few seconds, but only if it is HD.

I watch with interest.

[dmlsal]

I must be to much of a purist, I see very limited use for this in the artistry we create? You can Google, video editing software, if that’s what you want to create. I’m stymied what effect it would have to enhance our shows? In comedy… maybe, old 8mm footage* hmm, or just to add a new transition to help a boring show…lol

I would think the best way to answer this question is to do a sequence by adding your photo's to a trial video editing program and see what it looks like. Most allow you to add photo's to the video your editing. Then we can change this discussion to any benefits it adds/detracts from our shows. (I know Lin was anticipating this). I have recently played with painting (Corel painter 11) on some of my old bad photo's I needed to use in a sequence and they came out nice but still wonder if it really added or subtracted from the core of the show. I did say "sequence" as that is what we are trying to produce . . . right? Not videography, nor slideshows. I have seen some of the most beautiful "slideshows" created by the folks here and many would be additionally spectacular with a narrative added. But I understand why they aren’t, as most of our voices don't add to but subtract from the show ( I scored a 6/100 on the Karaoke machine, I know). My hope is Igor will work on voice enhancement so we can all add our voice narratives to our shows.

* I have tried to extract short video clips and photo's from my fathers’ old 8mm movies to use in segments of one of my new shows and it's nasty to make it pretty! Suggestions always welcome!

Its Spring it the Desert here, the Lizards are out!

-DD

[Howard Bagshaw]

To join the debate, I think that we will see a whole range of uses of video being incorporated into sequences once we get the facility. Some, I guess will work well, others will be awful. Just to give us an example to talk about, I've put up an example I made.

The background is that my wife and I and a couple of friends went to an RPS AV day at Bradford (UK) and on the way back had a tyre puncture on the motorway (in the dark and rain). While waiting for the services to arrive I took a few pictures and a bit of video on my wife's Lumix TZ7. As I was due to be a speaker at the next Bradford event, I thought that I could start my talk with a very short sequence (1min 7 secs) of the incident. The audience enjoyed it incidentally!

As PTE7 is not yet available I took the bit of video and used a free utility to break it into individual frames which then went into the sequence at 40msec intervals. The 'stop motion' start to the video section was deliberate, but in hindsight doesn't work. Once we get the ability to add video more easily, then the transition from still to video will be much easier.

Download from www.staffs-av.org.uk/AVs/Flat.zip

14.5Mb; 1280x720pixels; 1min 7 secs; video could be jerky due to high frame rate (25fps)

[Lin Evans]

Hi Howard,

What a miserable day to have to have a flat!! Nice use of the video simulation - works perfectly for me. Yes, this is a perfect example of when a little video clip could be nicely integrated to help tell a story. Thanks!

Best regards,

Lin

To join the debate, I think that we will see a whole range of uses of video being incorporated into sequences once we get the facility. Some, I guess will work well, others will be awful. Just to give us an example to talk about, I've put up an example I made.

The background is that my wife and I and a couple of friends went to an RPS AV day at Bradford (UK) and on the way back had a tyre puncture on the motorway (in the dark and rain). While waiting for the services to arrive I took a few pictures and a bit of video on my wife's Lumix TZ7. As I was due to be a speaker at the next Bradford event, I thought that I could start my talk with a very short sequence (1min 7 secs) of the incident. The audience enjoyed it incidentally!

As PTE7 is not yet available I took the bit of video and used a free utility to break it into individual frames which then went into the sequence at 40msec intervals. The 'stop motion' start to the video section was deliberate, but in hindsight doesn't work. Once we get the ability to add video more easily, then the transition from still to video will be much easier.

Download from www.staffs-av.org.uk/AVs/Flat.zip

14.5Mb; 1280x720pixels; 1min 7 secs; video could be jerky due to high frame rate (25fps)

[dpletts]

My thoughts.

Should we care about protocol and theory? Shouldn't we just do what our instincts tell us will work for us? There's always someone who will share our instincts, but others won't. Is there right or wrong in artistic endeavour? We don't like everything we experience be it sight, sound, taste etc, do we? And not everything is of the highest standard, but it may still be interesting, inspiring or have some other worth. Such is the spice of life. Let's have fun!

Just because an application has certain features, we don't have to use them. And also think of the satisfaction that the PTE crew get from programming something challenging, and getting it right. And how lucky we are to be at the receiving end..

I'm not trying to upset anyone, get at anyone, or criticise anyone; I'm just sharing my personal opinion for what it's worth.

So I give Howard top marks for an interesting project.

David P

[Ken Cox]

DAVID

YOU DA MAN

"Just because an application has certain features, we don't have to use them. And also think of the satisfaction that the PTE crew get from programming something challenging, and getting it right. And how lucky we are to be at the receiving end.."

how many times have we made that statement -- cant understand these people that still dont know how to use the "off" or whatever switch -- they would rather whine

ken

[AnKo]

how many times have we made that statement -- cant understand these people that still dont know how to use the "off" or whatever switch -- they would rather whine

Ken,

True, but this is just one side of the coin, in my opinion. The other side is that as long as development is focused on video implementation, other important improvements should have to wait. Those who are eagerly waiting for an improved interface or better handeling of audio for example, instead of the video implemantation, have to be very patient. Not to mention the very useful wishes and idea's users asked for over time.

I do understand that implementation of video in PtE is commercialy essential for the future of Wnsoft. But it will take some time before a stable and bugs free PtE7 can be released. Thats quite normal. So how long does this group of users have to wait for the improvements they wait for? But they wait!

Many PtE users are focused on video today, and following the discussions on this forum, I sometimes got the feeling that those others are not always taken serious anymore and get less respect because they have other wishes and therefor an other opinion.

But I am very sure they are just as impatience as the group of video users.

Kind regards,

André

[Lin Evans]

Hi André,

Of course there are always things which each of us would like included, improved, etc., about a software product. Unfortunately software developers are trying to please a very large and diverse audience where there are dozens if not scores of different ways of using a tool such as PTE. The product is constantly evolving and improving and serving the new as well as the old user. But the discussion here was intended to give users ideas of how we might implement this new video feature rather than to debate which other features might or should be considered "before" implementing video.

In light of that consideration, I would like to suggest one way in which PTE might be used with the video feature and that is to help tell a story about some social or political item of interest.

Ken posted a link and comments about what I find to be a very troubling issue. As a veteran of the Vietnam conflict myself, and having been wounded in battle and having suffered social pressures from citizens against an unpopular war when I returned home in the late 60's, I very much appreciate the actions of Terry Kelly who spotlights the need for society to recognize the contributions of the soldier toward trying to establish order in a chaotic world and preserve the freedoms we deem our right.

Sometimes, such a story can be told such as that with the song "A Pittance of Time" by Terry Kelly. But clicking on a website URL and then reading and ferreting through the pages with the option of clicking on the video link sometimes carry less impact than having the items presented in an orderly fashion with a slideshow. With that in mind, I used some of the elements found on the website and the video to demonstrate one way we might use this new video feature of PTE. The web pages links and such were cloned out in Photoshop, then presented in an informational way in this demo:

http://www.learntoma...en/pittance.zip

And if you would like to see a seriously "excellent" way of using video with masking, stills and creative implementation, have a look at Charlie's Jazz demo here:

Best regards,

Lin

[Lin Evans]

Here's one technique which can be presently used to play slides behind a video. Once the video "tracks" are implemented, then a video will be able to span multiple slides placed in the slide list, but there are still other ways to play slides behind a video. One way is to include slides on the objects list and turn them on and off in sequence with keyframes and opacity changes. This is quite tedious and time consuming and will become obsolete as soon as video tracks are employed.

Another way is to place a number of slides under a single parent frame as children. If they are lined up side by side horizontally with each slide touching the adjacent slide, then the entire horizontal "string" can be controlled by the parent frame and two keyframes. The first keyframe to mark the position to begin horizontal pan and the last to stop the pan.

One "could" go to a photo editor such as Photoshop and create a single long "pano" type file consisting of multiple images placed side by side then save this as a single jpg and slowly scroll it, but that method requires the user to have a good photo editor such as Photoshop. Doing it the way I did for this demo only requires a little creativity. Because the lowest value in percent on the "View" is 10%, one can't "see" all slides lined up to be controlled with the frame. To get an even smaller "view" it's possible to "type in" a value smaller than 10%. I used 2% to be able to see enough area outside the display to get everything lined up properly.

Next the entire "group" of slides is moved into position with the parent Frame so that the pan begins and moves to the left. A "mask" was used over a gradient background to soften edges of the frame. To get a pause on the last frame with a fade to black and avoid an abrupt return to the desktop at the end of the video, HyperSnap was used to quickly "copy" the very last frame. This "copy" was then added as an additional slide with a "quick, no transition" and then this last slide was faded to a black jpg via timed opacity to get a smooth transition back to the desktop.

About a 19 meg download:

http://www.learntoma...en/pittance.zip

Lin

[AnKo]

"But the discussion here was intended to give users ideas of how we might implement this new video feature rather than to debate which other features might or should be considered "before" implementing video."

"In light of that consideration, I would like to suggest one way in which PTE might be used with the video feature and that is to help tell a story about some social or political item of interest."

Hi Lin,

It was not my intention to debate about "all those other wishes and features"; that has been done many times before. I think I did not understand the quoted part Ken refered to and picked out the tone I felt it was written in. My Dutch is much better than my English, sorry.

My father was a Dutch veteran in our former colony Indoniesia at the age of 21 from 1946 - 1948, right after WOII. And that war made deep impact on him. All his life he struggled with what he has done and seen over there, and back home his struggle that it was all done "for the good cause". At the end of his life at 64 this was his conscientious mental conflict and I sure hope he has peace now.

At the time of the Vietnam war I was 10 - 15 years young. We demonstrate many times against it (make love, not war), saw the horrors on TV and the consequences many years later in movies and documenteries. I've watched "A Pittance of Time" and it came all back to me. Impressive.

So I must agree that this is a good example to use video in slideshows. And a great song!

Thanks for your reply.

André