Future of PTE?

[ADB]

Hello all

It has been a long time since I made an entry in this forum but I have been keeping an eye on the progress of PTE.

The reason I have been away is that I have been experiment making slide shows with the various Video Editors now available, editors that allow you to create high quality DVD output.

Now using a video editor I can basically produce any manner of slideshow I want and include as many images on the screen at the same time, or as many soundtracks or sound effects or scrolling panoramas or titles or fancy transitions or absolutely anything I want.

This is great I can produce high quality DVD output with complete control over the end result.

Trouble is Video Editors won't let me make a compact little EXE file that I can email over the internet or allow someone to download from my website and this is where Pictures2exe is champion.

Its great that PTE can also output to DVD but in my opinion in its current form its just an added extra of PTE not a feature aligned to the original purpose of PTE and that is of course producing EXE files.

I think if you had a hard core slide show producer that just wanted to produce DVD's from stills then PTE at the moment probably isn't the best choice, you can find video editor software that will more than meet your every requirement.

So at this point in time I mind myself in a frustrating situation, I have one peice of software that will do absolutely anything I want provided I want to output to DVD on the other hand I have PTE a great piece of software that will create great DVD and EXE output but can't:-

* Allow for a full scrolling panorama - vertical or horizontal

* Allow for MEASURED zooming in or out of an image

* Allow for a THIRD or EVEN fourth image to be overlaid on top of what's already on screen.

PTE is close but not quite there yet. I think if you could solve the above you would increase you potential market enormously.

My suggestion is that why doesn't PTE follow the same lead of Video Editors and have Tracks to produce its shows. It really would only need three image tracks maybe four and two or maybe three sound tracks. PTE is already going this way with the Customizable Sync Window and Overlay of the Sound Track Wave Form why not go the whole way? GLOBFX used this system and the shows it produced were amazing. Scrolling and Zooming, well I just think PTE must have this is in future to stay competitive as it is probably the major point of difference between PTE and a Video Editor at this point in time, Video editors can do anything but 95% of the time the output only requires cuts, fades, titles, zooms, and scrolls the first three PTE can do the last two it can't (YET!)

My purpose for these comments is that I like PTE, I like the concept that it has held its own for sometime in the face of some big name software companies but with the shift to DVD output as the primary end result the developers of PTE need to stay sharp and provide software that provides the same DVD result as Video Editors when used with still images BUT have the added advantage of EXE files...then I'll only need to keep one peice of software in my slideshow programs folder!

[bharkins]

What video editor do you use presently?

[MikeL117]

Hi Andrew

I agree with some of your vision of a future PTE and I have little doubt that it will get there, in time – but not too much time with the dedication and enthusiasm of Igor and his team. As for now there is (IMO) little need of some the facilities you mention by the majority of its present users.

It has become the de-facto standard for AV work the world over and has revitalised the flagging AV scene. It has achieved this remarkable feat by being relatively simple to use and very reasonably priced. A large number of digital AV workers are simply transferring there traditional skills and more complicated software offering significantly advanced features could well be intimidating to its target market and even throttle the expansion and reduce the market.

As digital AV matures the users will start to push at the boundaries and, hopefully, PTE will be keeping one step ahead of the majority. There will always be a few, like you, who have seen the potential and would like to use the advanced tools now. We are the ones that must be rather more inventive and find more indirect routes to the effects we want to achieve until the tools are built. Some of us can experiment with other ways of producing presentations and can transfer some of these skills and techniques back to PTE as it develops, sharing the ideas with newer users as we progress.

I would desperately like two or more independent time-lines and would probably use that facility in every sequence I produced. There are ways to simulate this to a limited degree and I can wait for ability to do this fully. There are more important work-flow improvements to be incorperated first.

I don't see PTE ever becoming a video editor, there are plenty of these about. Although how many of them successfully work with stills?

The advanced video facilities you describe can only be done on the most powerful of desktop computers 'in real time'. Don't forget that the size of PTE presentations tend to be 1024x768 or even 1280x1024 far higher than even broadcast standard video.

I don't agree that the focus of PTE has shifted now that it can produce video. I see this as a useful extra allowing more people to see the work produced with PTE and to allow sequences to be included in other video presentations.

I think I have ranted on enough, sorry. I am sure that somewhere in this mammoth tome is something that is relevant to the initial post, I do go on sometimes.

Producing AVs for most of us is fun and using PTE (for most of the time) is fun.

[ADB]

bharkins

Hi, I'm using the Ulead MediaStudiopro, ironically I was pointed in that direction by Wnsofts initial recommedation to use Ulead DVD Movie Factory to write the DVD output from PTE!

Mike

Thanks for your comments. I too come from an AV background and remember the days when I used to dream about doing AV's on a PC and these days I imagine slide projectors are rapidly being overtaken by LCD projectors hooked up to laptops, it is amazing how things change.

On thing I would like to say is that I think you have underestimated the power of motion in a presentation, we couldn't EASILY use motion on screen back in the slide projector days but today the technology does allow us, it seems to me if we have a new technology we should enjoy it to its fullest and not just be happy with what we could create in the past. As soon as you introduce subtle motion into a presentation it takes on a third dimension and lets your audiance enjoy a more seemless experience. I don't believe that its too hard to do if an 8kb Java applet can smoothly scroll a 360° panorama on my web site I'm sure its not hard to introduce it into a program like PTE, it basically does it now with the "slide" transition. If you doubt whether today's average PC can't handle multitrack presentations in high quality go to www.globfx.com and download their trial.

I'm beginning to rant now but this has been my "hobby horse" for some time so persiverance may be the key

Just ONE last thing....

"Blackness fills the screen, the haunting music stirs as a lone fishing boat appears on the screen, as the screen slowly zooms out a huge storm cloud is revealed in the distance appearing to threaten the now tiny fishing boat as the music intensifies......"

This could very easily be PTE and truly hope one day it is.

[MikeL117]

Andrew

You are correct about the extra depth added by (often simple) movement and to have overlapping fades with two or more related but asynchronous events...

I come to PTE from a stills photography and commercial presentations background. I appreciate what can be done. One of the pieces of software that I use is called Watchout from Dataton which uses multiple timelines and can incorporate video (including high definition and live camera) position, scale and opacity of any object is variable and keyframable. All in real time. But it is very demanding of computer power and it still has limitations - I wish I could easily play a PTE show through it. In a recent three screen show I had video (3000x1000 produced in Premier and After Effects) constantly running in a loop in the background with two separate live video feeds, PowerPoint, words and stills.

This type of software takes a huge investment in time and manpower and is priced accordingly. I can see some of this being added to PTE as it develops and, possibly, some of the more esoteric effects available as a separate plugin to help defray some of the development costs as long as there is sufficient demand by the users.

So keep riding that Hobby horse. As the user base realise what can be done then I am sure that Igor and his team will provide the tools.

Isn't it exciting!!!

I will have a look at globFx.

Mike

[mbskels]

Hi Andrew,

Your post raised some interesting points. I am a new user of PTE and an even newer user of video editing software (Ulead MS Pro 7).

Have you found any limitations to using PTE to produce the slideshow as an avi file then video editing software to add the special effects you mention? This is the route I am planning to investigate so I would be interested to know if you have found limitations to this approach other than the one you mention - the resulting file is not an exe.

Malcolm

[Eric Athroll]

Hi Andrew

I must agree with one of the responses to your comments about PTE; that it is simple, inexpensive and does the job many, many photographers like myself require.

I am a lifelong amateur photographer and have always belonged to a camera club where I have enjoyed many slide shows using two or more projectors and taped sound. Such shows are now being produced using PTE and video projectors/laptops.

I never got into slide sequences before; I just didn't have the time nor inclination to master the process. Since discovering PTE, however, I and many like me, are producing very watchable shows without the need for expensive, complicated, time consuming software. It is the only piece of software I have ever bought that I have been able to use with only five minutes tuition!

I also love the fact that without any extra work, my PTE slide show can also be turned into a DVD/SVCD to be enjoyed on a TV with exceptional quality with software I already have to do the encoding/burning.

I am sure there are many users of this remarkable software who would not wish to see it become over complicated and correspondingly expensive. As has been said, if it doesn't satisfy the requirements there are many other software packages that might fill the bill.

Long may it live - remember the old adage KISS!

Eric

[Ken Cox]

Long may it live - remember the old adage KISS!

Eric

we should add another "S" to KISS

with all Igors gyrations he has kept the package SMALL

so many people keep wanting the program to do everything but fly to the moon -- Igor has accomadated most requests

ken

[ronwil]

I think the interest in video speaks for itself. Take a look at the last time there was a posting in "How to create a video" - 18 June. Sorry Andrew I am probably wrong just as I was about the chewing gum.

Ron [uK]

[mhwarner]

Actually, I don't think it's a lack of interest in creating video (or DVD or SVCD or whatever). I watch that forum regularly and am disappointed not to see any postings that list easy and foolproof ways to make DVDs from P2E. When I finish my current programming project, I would love to easily create some DVDs of my slideshows so that I can pop them into the player and watch on TV (instead of carrying my laptop down and hooking it in).

It appears that only a few folks have been successful in making the transformations (at least using P2E), and there is no consensus on the right way to do it, or even the best software. As I recall, the package originally recommended for creating the DVDs by Igor is not even available any more. And everybody who has posted there seems to use different pieces of software with varying results.

I am by no means complaining about P2E. It is a wonderful piece of software and gets better with every update. I have been using the latest beta and I think the new light table is fantastic. I am just trying to point out that maybe it is not a lack of interest in putting slideshows from P2E on DVD, but rather the perception that it is for the moment, quite difficult and one cannot be assured of getting consistent results. My guess is that the folks who want to do this, like Andrew, have found other pieces of software that are easier and more consistent to work with for that particular activity and out of respect to Igor and his hard work are not posting their comments in these forums.

[MikeL117]

When I need to produce a piece of video I use some suitable piece of video software. When I do a slide show or AV I use PTE.

Each has its own strengths.

I can build a slide show in PTE in a half hour from scratch that would take two to get right in a Premier (video editor) or four (including rendering) in After Effects (Special Effects software).

I can now save that slide show as an AVI (with no problems) and incorperate it within another piece of video in another couple of minutes.

I expect that most of the problems with producing DVDs stems from the variety of buggy, low quality DVD software. Added to this are two other possible culprits; low cost (quality) DVDs causing the player to stutter while it retries incorrectly recorded areas, and user expectations - DVD quality will never match the .EXE quality.

There are also far fewer people want, need or have the equipment to produce DVDs than EXEs. YET.

If you have video out from your laptop you have an even easier way to make a video that can be viewed by even more people; plug it into the VHS recorder and press record.

Mike

[ADB]

Malcolm

I used to think that PTE was a very fast way to build the standard frame work of a DVD show using a video editor to add in all the fancy bits, but as I started to use the the video editor more I found it just as fast to make the whole show in the video editor, all new software has a "learning curve" and can appear intimidating at times but like most things practice makes perfect.

Eric

Yes I agree PTE is a simple and effective peice of software and has been kept small BUT I don't see the simple change of including a scrolling or zooming option is going to change the overall complexity of the program by very much at all or for that matter the size BUT by including this one small feature to allow scrolling and zooming you would do more for the end result of PTE output than any other change to the program I can think of.

Surely the ease of putting a show together is not as important as what the final result looks like? Are you going to worry about spending 5mins more to do a show if it can give you a huge increase in impact?

[jeanie]

mhwarner

B Beckham gives a video tutorial on creating a DVD from your PTE show on his Tips,Tricks, techniques and fun stuff video. Avalable on his web- site This goes through the process in detail.

jeanie.

[bharkins]

B Beckham wesite URL please?

[Ken Cox]

check page 1 at

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums//index...act=ST&f=3&t=87

ken

[ContaxMan]

BB's site is at:

http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/

[mbskels]

Andrew,

Thanks for your reply. At this point I find PTE more flexible and faster to build the slideshow than the video editor but perhaps as you suggest that is due to my lack of familiarity with MSPRO7.

What settings did you find best to create the custom avi file in P2E for input to MSPRO7? I find the range of choices confusing. I am intending to output from MSPRO7 to SVCD to replay on computer rather than TV.

Also what image size have you found to be best to start with in P2E for import into video editor. I am assuming 4:3 ratio but is it best to match the initial image size to the final output?

TIA

Malcolm

[ADB]

Malcolm

If you are using MSPRO7 I just select DVD-Video and Interlaced Video in theoptions dialogue unselecting the Sharpness, Pinnacle and DVD Movie Factory options. This gives great results.

As regards to image size go as high as you like as PTE cuts it down to DVD resolution. You don't have to fit the DVD format exactly for example if your images are a more rectanglular aspect than 4:3 you just end up with black bars top and bottom on your DVD but this still looks fine.