Allen Banks

[jevans]

Two weeks ago, three of us from our photographic club, visited the National Trust area at Allen Banks in Northumberland. It was a wonderfull day for late October and the autumn colours were very good. I have posted a short av on the Slideshowclub web site entitled "Allen Banks" as a reminder of our visit.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Jeff,

Really nice bucolic scenery! I liked the video introduction as well - great photography! My only suggestions would be to turn off the mouse cursor and fade the sound which ends pretty abruptly at the end of the show.

It appeared that the kids were really enjoying the season. Was there a tiny bit of snow in that first still shot?

Shame about the guy found on the road on the 8th in Northumberland presumed to have been hit by a lorry....

Best regards,

Lin

[jevans]

Hi Lin,

Thanks for the comments. DaveG pointed out the same error re the sound finishing abruptly. Checked my original PTE file and found that I have inadvertently uploaded an earlier version which was not quite finished. I have uploaded a new version. Not sure I understand the comment re the mouse cursor as this is set to "Hide" in project options/control and there is no navigation bar selected. On my screen there is no mouse cursor!!.

Jeff

[Ken Cox]

Jeff

the mouse times out after 10 15 secs

no big deal

great if I wanted to do a screen shot with cursor showing))

dandy collection

the show isn't going to the nationals is it ?)

ken

[PGA]

Jeff,

I don't see any mouse pointer - no matter how much I try and get one to show itself! But I'm viewing your second load-up. Lin and Ken were probably viewing your original load-up.

You have some lovely autumn colours and flowing water there but I felt that one or two images seemed to be a little over-exposed in the highlight areas. Some quick tweaks in Lightroom or ACR will sort those out. I also noticed that your "frame" around the base image doesn't quite cover all the pixels. Along the bottom edge and down the right hand side I could see perhaps one or two pixels of the underlying image peeping around the edge of the frame. Finally, do you need such broad, pure white borders around your inset images? Perhaps a narrower border in a mid-grey shade would work just as well and be less visually intrusive?

Thanks for sharing this with us. It made me regret not getting out more last month myself!

regards,

Peter

[Ken Cox]

Jeff

no mouse evident in revised upload

ken

[klucas]

Hi Jeff

Enjoyed the AV and the great photos.

[jevans]

Jeff,

I don't see any mouse pointer - no matter how much I try and get one to show itself! But I'm viewing your second load-up. Lin and Ken were probably viewing your original load-up.

You may remember my comments on this issue at Snods Edge, I have had a small problem with the mouse/navigation bar showing which I have found is due to my using two monitors and the mouse visibility issue only shows if I have the mouse on the correct screen. With two monitors, if I untick "show navigation bar" and Do Not hide the mouse cursor, I get a brief view of the navigation bar if I move my mouse onto the active monitor. To ensure that this does not happen, I must also hide the mouse. Sometimes I forget to do this.

You have some lovely autumn colours and flowing water there but I felt that one or two images seemed to be a little over-exposed in the highlight areas. Some quick tweaks in Lightroom or ACR will sort those out. I also noticed that your "frame" around the base image doesn't quite cover all the pixels. Along the bottom edge and down the right hand side I could see perhaps one or two pixels of the underlying image peeping around the edge of the frame. Finally, do you need such broad, pure white borders around your inset images? Perhaps a narrower border in a mid-grey shade would work just as well and be less visually intrusive?

The problem with the frame is (I think) only on the first image which is a video clip with a different aspect ratio to the stills image. I was a little careless in adjusting the frame on this image. The frame is 3px on 1400 x 933 images and the colour was selected from a typical image using the colour picker in Photoshop. Usually I do not put a frame around my images but I thought I would try it as a result of Barry Beckham's comments at his recent lecture day. Not sure I agree with you about the overexposure but maybe it is a monitor issue (although mine is regularly calibrated).

Anyway thanks for the comments which are greatly appreciated.

Thanks for sharing this with us. It made me regret not getting out more last month myself!

regards,

Peter

[jevans]

Ken, Thanks for your comments. No the show is just for my enjoyment and (hopefully) otheres as well. I have never felt brave enough to submit any av's for competition purposes.

[davegee]

Hi Jeff,

For future reference it might be easier to choose a resolution/AR that suits your Monitor?

In my case (for a 1920x1080 monitor):

4:3 = 1440x1080

3:2 = 1620x1080

16:9 = 1920x1080

I enjoyed version two.

DG

[jevans]

Dave,

The question of which resulotion to choose is a vexed one. Do I choose my monitor resolution (1920 x 1200 : 8:5) my club's projector resolution (1024 x 768 : 4:3)), my camera resolution (4608 x 3072 : 3:2) or the required resolution for our competition digital images (1400 x 1050 : 4:3)? As most of my AV's are shown via our club projector, I use 1400 x 1050. However as I export my images from Lightroom automatically to jpg files, the process produces files which are 1400 x 933, i.e. 1.5005 or virutally 3:2 and I set PTE, Project Options/screen, vitual size of slide to 1400 x 933. Images are set to "fit to slide" and this seems to work. the only issue is that I must remember that video files are a different aspect ratio.

[davegee]

Regarding 1400x933 - if you choose a width which is divisible by three you will get a true 3:2 output.

You could choose 1200 or 1500 and you would get:

1200x800

1500x1000

These are true 3:2 AR and will, as you say, cover screen - but for those times when it really matters, like when adding a border, they would be true 3:2.

You would get the same problem when using 1400 wide in a 16:9 AR - 1400 is not divisible by 16 (whole numbers).

1920 wide is a great resolution to use - it is divisible by 16; 5; 4; 3 etc and will always give a true AR:

1920x1200 - 16:10

1920x1080 - 16:9

1920x1280 - 3:2

1920x1440 - 4:3

1920x1536 - 5:4

DG

P.S. Regarding 1400x1050 - are you also plagued by the disastrous decision of the PAGB to adopt that Resolution/AR?

[David Porter]

Are you saying that to follow PAGB all photos must be 1400x1050 - surely not. Our club rules are that photos should not exceed 1400 wide nor 1050 high. I does not mean that you cannot put a photo in at 1400 x 787 (16x9 almost) it just means it will not fill the screen top and bottom. Mind you it would be nice to have bigger resolutions.

Mickp

[davegee]

Mick,

That's correct - not wider than 1400 and not higher than 1050.

It is (or was) governed by the resolution of the PAGB projector.

DG

[PGA]

The question of which resulotion to choose is a vexed one... Do I choose my monitor resolution (1920 x 1200 : 8:5) my club's projector resolution (1024 x 768 : 4:3)), my camera resolution (4608 x 3072 : 3:2) or the required resolution for our competition digital images (1400 x 1050 : 4:3)?

Jeff,

Have you ever stopped to consider just how stupid your club is? (If you're an officer or on the committee, then please accept my apologies, but this is not a personal attack on you).

Your club demands that the projected images be sized at 1400x1050 yet they have a projector capable of only 1024x768. Where's the logic in that? And do they really check all the submitted entries to confirm that they adhere to the rules? Would they ever notice if someone submitted something that was at a different resolution?

Do the club members realise that, by having their carefully prepared 1400x1050 images projected through a 1024x768 projector, their beautiful images are automatically being degraded, i.e. losing sharpness, by being downsized?

There should be no rules about image sizes. All there should be is a "Guidance" statement that digital images and AV sequences will be played back through a projector whose native resolution is wwww x hhhh pixels. Leave it to the members to then choose the aspect ratio and dimensions that they will use.

My final point: any club still operating a 1024x768 projector is a dinosaur of a club. And we all know what happened to the dinosaurs! A good quality 1920x1080 projector no longer costs several thousand pounds to buy. There are several on the market priced below £700 and the cost is continuing to fall. I bought myself an Acer at the start of the year. It cost me £650. I see that Acer now offer at least two models priced under £500, one of which is the model that I own.

Peter

[davegee]

It is equally ludicrous that Clubs, Societies and Federations etc having 1920x1080 Projectors also have to comply with the 1400x1050 Resolution/AR restrictions if they want to participate in the competitions of this body.

Images submitted at 1080 high at club level must be downsized to comply.

I have been out of touch with these resolution issues for around a year now but it seems from Jeff's comments that they still apply.

DG

[Ken Cox]

Barry has commented on this many times

ken

[jevans]

Jeff,

Have you ever stopped to consider just how stupid your club is? (If you're an officer or on the committee, then please accept my apologies, but this is not a personal attack on you).

Peter, Maybe you replied to this topic a little hastily. I am an officer of the club concerned which is a relatively small club with limited funds. We already have a good quality projector which unfortunately we cannot afford just to discard. We are well aware of the technical issues involved and our reasons for not changing are not from stupidity but from lack of funds.

Your club demands that the projected images be sized at 1400x1050 yet they have a projector capable of only 1024x768. Where's the logic in that? And do they really check all the submitted entries to confirm that they adhere to the rules? Would they ever notice if someone submitted something that was at a different resolution?

Yes we check that all pdi entries comply with the submission rules which are dictated to us by external bodies (PAGB/NCPF etc. Of course we could choose to ignore these but then could not take part in external competitions, both national and regional.

Do the club members realise that, by having their carefully prepared 1400x1050 images projected through a 1024x768 projector, their beautiful images are automatically being degraded, i.e. losing sharpness, by being downsized?

Yes unfortunatley.

There should be no rules about image sizes. All there should be is a "Guidance" statement that digital images and AV sequences will be played back through a projector whose native resolution is wwww x hhhh pixels. Leave it to the members to then choose the aspect ratio and dimensions that they will use.

My final point: any club still operating a 1024x768 projector is a dinosaur of a club. And we all know what happened to the dinosaurs! A good quality 1920x1080 projector no longer costs several thousand pounds to buy. There are several on the market priced below £700 and the cost is continuing to fall. I bought myself an Acer at the start of the year. It cost me £650. I see that Acer now offer at least two models priced under £500, one of which is the model that I own.

Peter

Of course I fully agree with your comments that we should use the most appropriate image size and associated equipment but financial and other constraints dictate otherwise.

[jevans]

Dave,

As you can see by my reply to Peter, we are indeed constrained by the PABG decision. However your comments on suggested aspect ratios makes me think that I will re-visit the standard ratio I will use for PTE.