Strange Land

[LumenLux]

Beechbrook.com is where you can find the show.

This 4 minute show is not so much a demo of what Version 5 can do, as it is an attempt to use a few of the new features in an appealing manner. So maybe there can be some discussion about what each of us do find appealing or not appealing so far. I mean, aside from the technical genius of the program and the fun of just seeing what can be done. I'm not sure just how much motion I want in various types of presentations. I thought I would like minimum motion, but find it is sometimes hard to jump from still to moving and back. So is it sometimes best to keep a constant motion similar to using only the fade transition in earlier versions? Or do you like to use the motion features to change the tempo? As you can see, I think we could all use some "discussion" as how the power can make presentations more pleasing, ie effective.

This show is less "extreme" in the motion than my earlier Spirits In The Sky. ( Also now on Beechbrook.) That one seemed to appeal very much to some, while others felt it was "over the top", with too much going on. With Spirits, and with Strange Land, my main objective is still the photography. So, in spite of all the fun of annimation, and creativity, at this juncture I am interested in exploring ideas how the new power can enhance the photo experience - not supplant it.

[ronwil]

First of all Robert, I must say that I found "Strange Land" as a sequence most enjoyable in its own right and not necessarily as a demo. The moving fades I found particularly pleasing.

As regards my anticipated future use of the facilities offered by 5.0, I see in it a useful tool for creating intros to shows and sequences, but wonder whether they might give a wrong impressiom to an audience who might then expect some movement in the rest of the performance. I would expect to use the facilities in the body of a sequence only when it serves a purpose and enhances the production. Most of the sequences I have seen in the past by AVers using ProShow Gold have been spoilt by an excessive use of the programme's various features. At the moment we PTE 5.0 users are experimenting and familiarising ourselves with what it has to offer and I am sure once we settle down we might expect some stunning projects.

Ron [uK

[Lin Evans]

Beechbrook.com is where you can find the show.

This 4 minute show is not so much a demo of what Version 5 can do, as it is an attempt to use a few of the new features in an appealing manner. So maybe there can be some discussion about what each of us do find appealing or not appealing so far. I mean, aside from the technical genius of the program and the fun of just seeing what can be done. I'm not sure just how much motion I want in various types of presentations. I thought I would like minimum motion, but find it is sometimes hard to jump from still to moving and back. So is it sometimes best to keep a constant motion similar to using only the fade transition in earlier versions? Or do you like to use the motion features to change the tempo? As you can see, I think we could all use some "discussion" as how the power can make presentations more pleasing, ie effective.

This show is less "extreme" in the motion than my earlier Spirits In The Sky. ( Also now on Beechbrook.) That one seemed to appeal very much to some, while others felt it was "over the top", with too much going on. With Spirits, and with Strange Land, my main objective is still the photography. So, in spite of all the fun of annimation, and creativity, at this juncture I am interested in exploring ideas how the new power can enhance the photo experience - not supplant it.

Hi Robert,

I really enjoyed the mood and aesthetics of this which very well matched the beautiful nature of the Utah landscape to the the background music. There was one point where I'm not certain, thinking back, whether I would keep the abrupt stop, however.

Consistency can be alluring whether expressed as perpetual slow pans and zooms or simply stills with appropriate transitions. Change can certainly be used as an aesthetic "punctuation," but I'm still certain whether I like it in that particular place.

One of the things which Igor will implement in the release, I think, is the rather nice feature of linear acceleration and deceleration so that it will be possible to have smoother transitions from movement to stills without the apparent "jerk" presently requiring one to necessarily overlap fades between frame changes. There are times when it would be really nice to smoothly pause motion and freeze on a particular frame then "slowly" resume the motion. I've found that I can use opacity levels and gaussian blur as a "masking" mechanism, but it would be nice to not have resort to this to effect smoother changes in the transition from still to movement and back.

Very nice presentation!

Best regards,

Lin

[nickles]

Lumenlux:

Very definitely a "strange land". First, your photography was very, very nice as I've learned to expect from your shows. I found the amount of motion you used to be very appealing. I had originally anticipated that Igor's pan & zoom would not really be that big a deal...as I tend to like slideshow of "stills". My opinion has changed especially after viewing shows like this as well as your "Spirit in the Sky". The slight motion can give the viewer more of a sense of "being there".

You captured a very good almost 3D effect in...I think the 8th slide.... with the big boulder to the right and the distant mountain in the horizon. You did this same thing in a couple of places in Spirit in the Sky..the most notable was where I felt like I was entering into the long stone causeway. I really like that effect. I assume maybe you intended it...or maybe luck?

You have done two very nice projects with PTE 5, that are very pleasing to watch...and I really think the motion added very nicely to the shows beyond PTE 4's more static effects.

What actual image size to you create this show from? In the large version of Spirit in the Sky, what was the actual image size you used?

Thanks,

ken

[alrobin]

Robert,

Interesting landscape, good photography, judicious use of KB effects - overall a very pleasant show. I felt the flowers, although beautiful, were out of place with the rest of the theme, but that is a personal opinion, not a technical criticism. Will have to put this on our list of things to see in the desert next trip!

You're right, once started, it's hard to know how much to use the new effects, and they are very addictive. I feel a little like some of the other respondents in that I'm undecided as to whether the effects should be "on" all the time, or only for special dramatic effect now and then. I find it hard to just sit and admire an image as a stand-alone work of art when it is in motion, even though it is very slightly so, but a little motion does seem to add to the overall pleasantness of a show and help to bring it alive.

[LumenLux]

First of all Robert, I must say that I found "Strange Land" as a sequence most enjoyable in its own right and not necessarily as a demo. The moving fades I found particularly pleasing.

As regards my anticipated future use of the facilities offered by 5.0, I see in it a useful tool for creating intros to shows and sequences, but wonder whether they might give a wrong impressiom to an audience who might then expect some movement in the rest of the performance. I would expect to use the facilities in the body of a sequence only when it serves a purpose and enhances the production. Most of the sequences I have seen in the past by AVers using ProShow Gold have been spoilt by an excessive use of the programme's various features. At the moment we PTE 5.0 users are experimenting and familiarising ourselves with what it has to offer and I am sure once we settle down we might expect some stunning projects.

Ron [uK

Thank you Ron. These must be really good thoughts - as I agree with them all.

I too am sensitive to your point of the intro misleading the viewer or causing a false anticipation which can certainly influence the viewer's appreciation. Even in PTE (pre 5Beta), I have seen many shows (some of mine too) where the first few slides have been so well designed but the rest of the show can't keep up. I know I have been guilty of spending say 8 hours tweaking the first two minutes of a show, and then hurriedly throwing the last 13 minutes together in a couple of hours. I think in the past this "danger" has been even more evident with Flash or other gee whiz openings.

I would expect to use the facilities in the body of a sequence only when it serves a purpose and enhances the production.

I think this makes very good sense, but will take time for us to each determine the definitions that fit. Unlikely that we will all have the same taste or conclusion. But useful it is to help each other understand the possibilities.

[LumenLux]

Hi Robert,

I really enjoyed the mood and aesthetics of this which very well matched the beautiful nature of the Utah landscape to the the background music. There was one point where I'm not certain, thinking back, whether I would keep the abrupt stop, however.

Consistency can be alluring whether expressed as perpetual slow pans and zooms or simply stills with appropriate transitions. Change can certainly be used as an aesthetic "punctuation," but I'm still certain whether I like it in that particular place.

One of the things which Igor will implement in the release, I think, is the rather nice feature of linear acceleration and deceleration so that it will be possible to have smoother transitions from movement to stills without the apparent "jerk" presently requiring one to necessarily overlap fades between frame changes. There are times when it would be really nice to smoothly pause motion and freeze on a particular frame then "slowly" resume the motion. I've found that I can use opacity levels and gaussian blur as a "masking" mechanism, but it would be nice to not have resort to this to effect smoother changes in the transition from still to movement and back.

Very nice presentation!

Best regards,

Lin

Lin, I think you have honed right in on many of my thoughts and concerns I experienced in this sequence. It can be really tough to "punctuate" with the right feeling. Sometimes I feel I want a "soft landing" to a photo but the emotional viewing effect is more like "HALT! put your hands up!". I think the abrupt stop you refer to was very possibly not the right choice on my part. Although I wanted the image to be a static frame for the next slide, the "still" was not really a slide that deserved a long artistic appraisal of itself vs the movement that had been carrying the viewer.

Thanks for your ideas on techniques for smoothing with opacity and blur. I have not utilized the blur yet. I like and use the opacity and the overlapping of slides. The thing I like with opacity control is that I can change the background color of the slide and thus get customized effect from the opacity change.

Igor's promised control of linear acceleration seems it may add another complication, but a very valueable tool. I have already expressed to Igor that what is now technically constant speed really appears much different than that in certain cases. So I look forward to being able to adjust to the desired perception.

Thank you Lin for your generous sharing of your own learning and experiences. I think you, Al, Nickles, and some of our French friends already know more of this new PTE than I will ever learn. Ooops, better mention some of our British AVists too! It really is great to see the excitement and the willingness to help others experience the excitement.

[LumenLux]

[LumenLux]

Robert,

Interesting landscape, good photography, judicious use of KB effects - overall a very pleasant show. I felt the flowers, although beautiful, were out of place with the rest of the theme, but that is a personal opinion, not a technical criticism. Will have to put this on our list of things to see in the desert next trip!

You're right, once started, it's hard to know how much to use the new effects, and they are very addictive. I feel a little like some of the other respondents in that I'm undecided as to whether the effects should be "on" all the time, or only for special dramatic effect now and then. I find it hard to just sit and admire an image as a stand-alone work of art when it is in motion, even though it is very slightly so, but a little motion does seem to add to the overall pleasantness of a show and help to bring it alive.

Al, I value your aesthetic view as well as your technical expertise. Thank you.

Ah, the flower. The only comment my wife had was indeed also the flower. Her thought was I should have used it sooner in the show. (Maybe by the foreground sunflowers?) In my mind the flower served several ideas. Remember how Boxig used to try to include in each show, some little trick or unexpected item? I think sometimes an "out of place" item really does have a place and can stir further thoughts or point out relationships. I guess in this case I hoped the flower might fit as sort of a useful anachronism. Around Utah there is a well known statement that actually originates in the bible. Isaiah 35:1 The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. Granted, the flower is not a rose, but I was thinking it as symbolic for the purpose. The flower, as a more recognizable form of beauty, is very meaningful in the setting of Goblin Valley's less conventional beauty. In fact most people might find Goblin Valley interesting but not necessarily beautiful. This particular flower is also interesting as you notice the open blossoms are white and the closed blossoms pink. And as the desert day ends and the flower represents the life cycle goes on, etc. etc. I also like the very good dirt and pebbles in the flower photo. Ties right in. By now, I hope you aren't sorry you mentioned it. But, yes it does sort of break the flow, but . . .

You remind me of one other observation. This StrangeLand sequence uses 12 slides. Only one had any editing, namely just one slide "sharpened." I had probably taken close to 200. With PTE 4.48 I suspect I would have used about 50 slides. Are we now able to tell a better story in 12 slides than in 50? Although you say you can't study the moving photo for artistic merit, have you really studied it more as PTE paces your view? I agree with you though. And finally, what do we do with all the other photos. I guess we buy stock in makers of hard drives and flash media and other storage media.

[alrobin]

Robert,

As you know, AV's, like all art forms, are very personal creations, so I try to be very careful when critiquing someone's work, and try instead to identify with the artist, and see the work from his or her point of view. This is really what art is all about - it's all about the artist him or herself.

However, I guess it was the fact that the flowers appeared at the end of the sunset scene, which usually indicates the end of a show, that threw me. I was startled to see another image, and one so dramatically different from the rest. Maybe if the flowers had "evolved" directly out of the rock formations, themselves, I would have found it more understandable, and caught the intended message.

Or, maybe that text you quoted, fading into the picture at the same time, would have made the message clearer to my thick brain. And, it wouldn't have been out of place either. It's something I don't often use, myself, but I have seen other people use text along with images, and it can be very effective.

Also, I believe there was only one floral image, so it almost looked (to me) as if it had slipped in there by mistake, as there was no follow-up to further develop and explain it's presence.

Just my initial reactions, but then I'm probably too old-fashioned to catch on at first glance. It's an interesting and appealing idea, though. And the photography was great

I, too, have noticed while playing with v.5, that I am using much fewer images. A moving image like a pan or zoom seems to require more time, and this longer time seems to be quite acceptable, than is the case with still images. With only still images, it seems to take a few quick transitions - just the opposite of a longer KB effect - to generate interest and add impact.

Of course, it depends on the nature of the show, and what mood one is trying to elicit from the audience. A moving image seems to generate it's own suspense, in that one is waiting to see what is going to appear around the corner, or in the foreground or background, so a longer time on screen seems to be more acceptable.

I think using fewer images is a good thing, though, as one can then concentrate on using the best ones. In the case of "traditional" slideshows a common statement by AV producers is that it is OK to throw in lesser-quality images to pad out the show. This is really false logic, and basically a crutch, so if adding movement to the show helps to alleviate this problem, then I believe we are all better-served.

[nickles]

I think if my logic is correct, you, or someone, could very easily give us a formula or table to determine the minimum file dimensions necessary to not degrade the photo at it's maximum zoom in the show. Anyone?

I'm doing some serious thinking on sizing photos, aspect ratios for camera and PC screen, and how to best design shows for being seen with "who knows what?" aspect ratio and screen resolution the end customer has. If I can sort it all out I may generate some general guidelines...as I see it. As you are aware it's normally satisfactory to downsize but not upsize beyond the original pixels.

I started an initial thinking thread here:

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4481

Secondly, I really think your nice 3D effect was surely luck.

One other thing, hindsight always being better than foresight, it would have really been neat if the slide with the yellow foreground flowers had been shot twice. Once at a narrow depth of field with the flowers in focus and the object rocks out of focus, followed by the large depth of field(as in your show) with the rocks in focus. Would have been difficult to do without a tripod...but would have made a neat transition for concentrating on the rock figures.

Sincerely,

nickles

[LumenLux]

Thanks for the comments. I would invite futher comment from more of our forum members. Everyone may not want to comment on the technical apsects but everyone certainly can say what they "like" or "don't like" about the new "motion" power and usage. Do you like the use of motion on all, most, few, or none of slides in a presentation? As you know, there are no "right" or "wrong" answers. (I think )