Alternate output to exe - which is good quality for PC

[Photofanatic]

Hello again

I have copied an .exe slideshow to DVD for a friend to play on his PC but he cant open it because of his security settings which prevent him opening an .exe from a removable disc.

My question therefore is: Is there an output I can publish to which will give equal quality to the exe for playback on a computer (ie not DVD) - (I dont think this is just another version of the DVD quality questions - I have resigned myself to the fact that converting to a DVD considerably reduces quality)

Thanks

Joy

[Ken Cox]

did you try copying the exe and pasting it to the desktop and playing it ??

ken

[Photofanatic]

I will ask him to try this - but to be honest I think there will still be problems as the .exe file won't play on my laptop either without disabling the security software.

Thanks

Joy

[Barry Beckham]

Joy

Please forgive what I am about to say in response to your last post, but................Its time for you to consider changing your anti-virus program, because it seems as good as useless in my view. Its there to protect us, not take over and prevent legit files being played. There are lots of good free anti virus programs available such as Microsoft Essentials that seem to protect us with out causing the problems you describe.You or your friend should not have to look for ways around your virus program to get a slide show to play.If you tell the forum what your using, I am sure you will get plenty of feedback of what others in the same situation as you are using.

[Ken Cox]

Joy

a few years back we heard your problem quite regular - the cause was underpowered systems -not having enough hp to transfer from the cd disc to the operating system

if CONFLOW reads your thread he may elaborate

ken

[davegee]

Is there an output I can publish to which will give equal quality to the exe for playback on a computer (ie not DVD) - (I dont think this is just another version of the DVD quality questions - I have resigned myself to the fact that converting to a DVD considerably reduces quality)

Thanks

Joy

Making an MPEG4 file of the Project is as near to EXE quality as you are likely to get.

It would have to be sent via DVD and copied to the computer (as per Ken's suggestion) but should not give any security problems.

The MPEG4 has the added advantage of being useable on a suitable TV via a USB Memory Key.

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi Joy,

I've got to disagree a little here, especially if you have complex animations. The MP4 h.264 output from PTE is excellent and very close if not exactly like the exe quality as long as you do not have complex animations. If you do, they will not play as smoothly on your computer "or" on your television in my experience.

The very "best" way to produce a video of complex animations which I have found is by using the XVID codec. You may want to read this post and consider downloading and installing this codec to use. Playing back the video on a computer will also require this codec be installed on the system doing the playback, but it's not necessary for playback on your television. The output, in my experience, is virtually indistinguishable from an exe of the same HD dimensions.

http://www.picturest...h__1#entry96318

Best regards,

Lin

[Bert]

Joy,

If you sign up for dropbox, you can link your friend and put PTE,s EXE shows and MP4 shows in his dropbox file. My friends and I do this all the time and it works great.

regards,

Bert

[Photofanatic]

Hello

Thanks for your replies and suggestions - I am at this moment creating an mp4 version as per Davegees advice, I am also a frequent user of Dropbox for images but never thought of putting a slideshow on it! ....and I am also eager to try Lin's suggestion of using the XVid codec especially if it improves plaayback on the TV!

I will have a go at this myself but as I am on very confusing and unfamiliar ground with video codecs I might be back for some more advice soon.

Thanks once again for your invaluable (as always) advice.

Joy

[davegee]

Lin,

I found that the XVID Codec is already installed on my new PC so.......

I have been doing a little testing today on Video made three different ways:

XVID Codec

MPEG4-ASP

MPEG4-H.264.

Using the same project, which is the current project I am working on containing some wireframes which are admittedly not as taxing as the video that you described but nevertheless needing a good PC, my initial findings are as follows. Please bear in mind that my requirements are quality of picture above all else.

With the XVID Codec some of the wireframes looked as though they were made from wire ropes? An aliasing type effect which was quite off-putting. No glitches - "smooth as butter" as Ken says.

MPEG4-ASP - Wireframes were as smooth as they were expected to be when compared with the EXE file. No "rope-like" effect.

MPEG4-H264 - Outshines the other two by a considerable margin. No comparison quality wise.

Now, if I had constructed something as technically challenging as your example the "smooth as butter" result might be different, but on the face of it and judging by what I have seen I cannot say that the XVID Codec produces the same QUALITY of end result as the other two.

I really would like someone else to chip in to this debate - it is of interest to all.

DG

[Photofanatic]

this is getting very interesting now. I really appreciate your time and interest! I will try out your findings.

Joy

[Lin Evans]

Hi Dave,

I guess it depends on how one defines "quality." If with one technology (call it A) the animation is jerky and not smooth, while with the other (call it 'B' - the animation is perfect - I would say that "B" is qualitatively better than "A". On the other hand, if the image quality of "A" for minimal animation is better than the image quality of "B" for the same image, then in such a case "A" is qualitatively better than "B".

I could see no image quality difference between the show created with Xvid and the one right out of PTE with MP4 h.264 in the case of my demo show and viewed at 1280x760 on a 40" Samsung LED television, but the animation was perfect with the Xvid version and not smooth at all with the MP4 h.264 version.

A "rope-like" appearance of thin curved lines such as you experienced indicates poor interpolation or low quality resolution on the original. Since it looked fine on the MP4 h.264 version, I would "think" that the original resolution was sufficient but that when it was enlarged for display via Xvid the "interpolation" was bad or perhaps the enlargement was done with an inferior algorithm. Having not tried one of the wire-frame objects with either, I can't really comment, but with all the animation and images in my demo show, the Xvid at 40" via the Samung was flawless and virtually indistinguishable from the exe version.

Why we would have such wide variance in observed results is the real question. Who knows, it may have been something in the version of Xvid codec you used or perhaps the settings which caused the difference. It is worth experimenting with, however, to see if we can explain the differences.

Best regards,

Lin

Lin,

I found that the XVID Codec is already installed on my new PC so.......

I have been doing a little testing today on Video made three different ways:

XVID Codec

MPEG4-ASP

MPEG4-H.264.

Using the same project, which is the current project I am working on containing some wireframes which are admittedly not as taxing as the video that you described but nevertheless needing a good PC, my initial findings are as follows. Please bear in mind that my requirements are quality of picture above all else.

With the XVID Codec some of the wireframes looked as though they were made from wire ropes? An aliasing type effect which was quite off-putting. No glitches - "smooth as butter" as Ken says.

MPEG4-ASP - Wireframes were as smooth as they were expected to be when compared with the EXE file. No "rope-like" effect.

MPEG4-H264 - Outshines the other two by a considerable margin. No comparison quality wise.

Now, if I had constructed something as technically challenging as your example the "smooth as butter" result might be different, but on the face of it and judging by what I have seen I cannot say that the XVID Codec produces the same QUALITY of end result as the other two.

I really would like someone else to chip in to this debate - it is of interest to all.

DG

[davegee]

Hi Lin,

As we are talking about PNG24 I am not sure where interpolation comes into it and since the XVID ans MPEG4-ASP versions were at completely defaultSettings for the same reolution they should produce the same effect with the same basic PNG files.We need 2 or more other testers and a more structured test.As for poor basic materials - you should know me better than that!!

Best wishes,

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi Dave,

There will "always" be interpolation unless the original image was captured at the final display resolution (pixel count). That is, unless your camera used to take the images or the photoshop settings for creating the images were at the exact display resolution used in the video/slideshow, interpolation will happen either with PTE or in the process of making the video. Interpolation happens on both the upsample and downsample steps with all good software in use today for photo processing....

I don't know what the default settings are for MPEG4-ASP because I don't have that as an option. However, there is no reason to assume that they would be identical.

I agree, it would be ideal to have several people do similar testing on identical original slideshows.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

As we are talking about PNG24 I am not sure where interpolation comes into it and since the XVID ans MPEG4-ASP versions were at completely defaultSettings for the same reolution they should produce the same effect with the same basic PNG files.We need 2 or more other testers and a more structured test.As for poor basic materials - you should know me better than that!!

Best wishes,

DG

[Photofanatic]

Hi Lin & Dave

All this is getting a bit above my level of understanding now!

Can I just ask a very basic & probably stupid question?

I assume you are publishing your show under as the 'AVI file' option? (as this gives a chance to choose the video codecs).

So am I right in thinking that if the ones you are talking about are installed - then they would be listed in the drop down menu?

Or - are you creating the outcome as an MP4 from the publish as 'HD Video for PC and Mac' option? - but in this I cant see you have a choice other than the H.264 codec. - unless the option appears if you have other ones installed?

If one of you could give me a basic laymans step by step guide to how you are testing the different codecs from within PTE - and come back down to my level in your explanation I'd appreciate it. Sorry to be a pain!

Joy

[Lin Evans]

Hi Joy,

I'm outputting the MP4 h.264 directly from PTE's Video Builder at 1280x720 pixels and comparing it to the same show output via PTE's AVI creation feature and choosing the 'Custom AVI", Xvid codec at 1280x720 pixels at 59.94 fps. Dave apparently has access to MPEG4-ASP which will be used in the auto-creation of AVI via PTE 7.5. I don't have that one so can't discuss it.

Best regards,

Lin

[davegee]

Lin,

I fear that you misunderstand.

To create the wireframe I use PNG made in PS at the intended final res. there is no interpolation involved. the final product is subjected to the same resizing when using xvid or mpeg4 h264 so how can that be an issue?

DG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

I understand - what I suggested is that the "appearance" of "rope-like" strands which you described generally is indicative of aliasing. If the original image did not appear with "stair-step" aliasing, but the image resulting from creation of the video "did" have this aliasing appearance, that evidence "suggests" interpolation. As you know, a curved line created with square or rectangular pixels will display such aliasing at any angle other than 45, 90 or 180 degrees. Anti-aliasing blurs the edges to facilitate the appearance of a continuous smooth line, but only two things that I'm aware of will change this. Excessive sharpening will defeat anti-aliasing blur and cause a "rope-like" appearance and interpolation whether downsampling or upsampling can exacerbate such a situation. Not knowing (at the time I responded) whether the original size of the created image was equal to the display size in your created videos I suggested that perhaps interpolation via the codec may have played a role.

If the Photoshop image was created at the video display size then there would be no need for interpolation. If the same image appears "rope-like" in one video and not in another, then something in the video processing chain (PTE, the video codec, etc.) has affected the image. Not having actually seen your output, I can only guess at the cause based on your description of the results. I think it would be fairly easy to take a few seconds worth of slides and create multiple videos using MP4 h.264, Xvid and whichever other codecs you might want to test and make samples which could be run on various different display devices (TV, LCD Displays, CRT displays, etc.) to see what results might occur. It would be interesting to try to determine the cause of your observed results.

Best regards,

Lin

Lin,

I fear that you misunderstand.

To create the wireframe I use PNG made in PS at the intended final res. there is no interpolation involved. the final product is subjected to the same resizing when using xvid or mpeg4 h264 so how can that be an issue?

DG

[davegee]

Once again Lin, it matters not what was done. the xvid codec produce a different (worse) result than the other

Try again on Monday

Dg

[davegee]

Lin,

As promised I repeated my checks of the XVID Codec against some others and found that my results did not differ from last week.

As far as the QUALITY of the images is concerned I cannot recommend the XVID Codec.

The project which I used was a 1920x1200 project which obviously required to be resized during the process but PLEASE bear in mind that this resizing was applied in all versions and therefore what we are looking at is how the XVID Codec handled this in comparison with the others.

In the case of the XVID and MPEG4-ASP Codecs the resizing was done to the height and produced 1728x1080 60fps Video Clips.

Both were played in Windows Media Centre by Double Clicking and the results were as I described. The XVID Codec failed to handle some of the Wireframe elements satisfactorily and the MPEG4-ASP Codec had no problems with these at all. I also tried Media Player Classic with the same result.

The Default H264 version was also (automatically) resized to 1728x1080 using "Fixed Size of Slide" and the quality of the images and Wireframes was markedly better than the other two versions.

Maybe I'm missing something here and I'm willing to try any suggestions?

DG

P.S. the excercise has been useful in that I have realised that this project DEFINITELY needs to be 1920x1080 and not 1920x1200. I can "re-jig" without too much trouble before I get too far!! Tip - think about the intended use before deciding on an AR/Resolution!