Import, read, retrieve video/sound files on 1 computer

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Harry - before you decide just how easy "chromakey" is, do some research. Look into the colorspace issue with most of the video formats that people would be importing into Proshow from consumer cameras (typically DV format although there are newer ones now). Look up the problems with generating a good key with the 4:1:1 colorspace of the typical DV25. There is a reason that people like Boris can sell their keyer alone for video editors for many hundreds of dollars. Chromakey is easy if you have an image with 24 bit pixels (8:8:8) - the whole thing turns into a real pain when you start talking 4:1:1. It may look good at first glance on a small screen, but getting a good key that doesn't look ratty along the edges etc is NOT a trivial task. Even people using things like Vegas Pro spend extra for something like Boris if they are making a living with keying shots. Check it out - here is a link to the $299 Boris keyer.
http://www.borisfx.com/units/chroma_key.php

mikey

[hakumaster Profile Private message]

Kathy,

Since I, for one, do not wish to be uncouth under any circumstances, I shan't speak my mind about your intervention, 'smilies' and all. Let it suffice to say that one ought to stick to the subject at hand.

H

[hakumaster Profile Private message]

Hi Mikey

Harry - before you decide just how easy "chromakey" is, do some research.

Admittedly, as a professional feature filmmaker I am spoiled when it comes to digital effects - and multiple sound tracks, for that matter. Believe me, on the level of digital effects I have done lots of research since heaven knows when. On top of directing complex digital shots, I have done my share of pack shots on commercials - from analog matte shots of yesteryear to the actual digital thing, now even in 3D - and devised two or three things myself, so that I don't need to be given lessons in that respect. Moreover, I never said that chroma key is 'easy', just that it could be done. Neither did I say that optimum quality was involved.

The only thing I wanted to demonstrate with my silly little experiment is that chroma key is possible on a run-of-the-mill computer, with simple software, via even simpler programming, for use indeed on a computer. I never implied that one can achieve spectacular professional results for the big screen, quite the contrary. That is certainly another kettle of fish in terms of precision, keying, and the like - even though infinitely less complicated these days than 'specialists' lead us to believe.

That being said, I don't need a keyer to have my DOP set up a proper green screen - or to key the shots later. Never had any difficulty with any of this, even for the huge cinema screen. For that matter, I don't need a so-called "stereographer" either to devise my 3D shots. All these supernumeraries are just congesting my set - akin to the old days Technicolor days when Nathalie Kalmus was afflicting renowned DOPs with her 'advice' about what color to use on a shot. That is all cinema gobbledygook. And I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. If people want to spend extra on a film, it is often because they are insecure about the outcome, not because they need it.

So, that's that.

Bye.

Harry

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

As a professional film maker you've been spoiled by special effects... hmmm. I guess you don't do them yourself but have others do it for you. You don't, obviously do them yourself on your home computer. The capabilities of which are woefully inadequate to your expectations. It's not a machine that is well suited for video and barely suitable for slideshow programs of merit. It's hardware and drivers are not up to the task.

People here have tried to help you and all you've done is to complain about the help and denigrate those trying to help you. Then you complain about the results. In short, you've been mostly condescending.

You come with a professional video background. Yet you purchase a minimally capable slideshow program that's optimized for still photos and somehow, you feel confined by its limitations! Then you complain because it's not up to the expectations you had of it. Further, you make accusations on which you have no foundation and are completely insulting about it all to boot. It's apparent you have no idea what you're talking about, just unfounded suppositions.

And, with respect to the page curl, I may have invented a version of it but Photodex copied it from me. I had nothing to do with what they did. They took my idea and then also took a cue in their implementation of it from another source (in their use of video) to make the effect more easily amenable to use. To create the effect in an ALL ProShow implementation (except for the lone graphic file used to help create the effect) is difficult to achieve in Producer because it requires an understanding of masking, keyframing, and how ProShow does its work. It also requires some imagination to visualize the effect you're trying to create. While the end result pales compared to a real curl transition like you might find in a good video editor, it's still an interesting effect. You end up doing your best with what you have to work with and hope that better features come along to fill the void.

It wasn't long ago that these page curls didn't exist in any fashion except for the styles I created (I even have a tutorial here on how to go about creating it all in PSP, with the help of a graphic image). You may not like how it was implemented, you may not agree with how it was implemented, and you think there's a better way. But this is not a video program, tho it can handle video. It is better than many similar programs, both Gold and Producer. But, you know little to nothing about the program except that you're frustrated about the shortcomings of Gold, with you coming from a video background.

You are new to the software (Gold) and yet you profess to know more about it than you do. (lots of wishful thinking and little practical and useful experience to understand what you're trying to do). Then, in your arrogance, you denigrate that which and those who you don't know and also which you don't understand. Instead of trying to figure out what you need to do to achieve your results before lashing out you just let others have it (and you don't even know if it's warranted!). The worst part, however, is that you seem to relish in putting down or being condescending toward those with whom you disagree and/or those who've tried to help you. You have no idea to whom you're talking. Why do you have to be like that?

Dale

[chijeff Profile Private message]

I have to agree with Harry - at least on a couple of items. First let me say that I really love Producer when it is working. That said, however, I have, through multiple itterations of Producer struggled with many of the things Harry talks about; extremely slow response time, myriad crashes for no reason, etc. I have loaded many different codecs, stopped every background service known to mankind, eliminated my anti-virus/anti-malware programs, and eliminated virtually everything in my start-up process. Still, I get frequent windows errors, and crashes, especially when using video clips in a show. My calls to Photodex support have been so fruitless as to be almost humorous. Their techs immediately play the "It's not us, it's you" game by pointing fingers at every conceivable piece of software 'interfering" with Producer. They sometimes actually get combative when I explain that I have taken all of the steps they have suggested to fix the problem, with no resolution. Then they blame my machine for being 'overwhelmed'. To be fair, I do not have the latest i7 processor with 57 Gigs of ram, but my 2.5 Mhz dual core with 4 Gb of RAM seems like it ought to do the job. My point is this: how many applications out there make you move heaven, earth and every conceivable piece of software, just so their app functions marginally well? Recently, I was working on a large show for a client. Producer went through a full hour of rendering the show, then collected all of the show files (even though I had done so myself), and just before creating the image file, up pops my old friend the "Proshow has encountered a problem and needs to close" error. An hour and a half of rendering time was wasted. My first attempt didn't even get this message. Proshow simply shut down and disappeared from my screen. My point is this (and thank you for letting me vent a little) I can't be the only one out there with these issues. Isn't there some way Photodex can make a more stable product, and is it wrong to expect some empathy from their "support people"? Sometimes I feel as though we loyal users of Proshow are simply Guinea pigs every time a new release comes out.

Everyone on this forum has always been very helpful, so I am hoping someone might have some additional suggestions for me ( I'm not sure why I show up as a new member since I am a donor & joined in 2006). I just ordered a quad core processor in hopes that it will increase Producer's rendering speeds.If I can't find a way around these problems, I just might have to take Kathy's advice.

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Stability has ALWAYs been a problem with ProShow. It's gotten better in the past year or so. However, it still seems to have a penchant for just simply disappearing from memory, on a regular basis. I find myself saving regularly (in addition to it's own saving process). Additionally, it doesn't do well with lots of video. The render process (or perhaps it's their version of transcoding) happens regularly (as in, each time I re-open a video containing video ... at least it seems to take more time with these types of shows). It seems to get confused when going from one slide to the next and sometimes it fails (and I'm back to reopening the show and program and hoping nothing got corrupted). Various windows of Producer/Gold will lose their z-order and I have to find them hiding behind another open program. Sometimes the window is behind the main program window. Odd stuff.

While the stability has gotten better, it's by no means what I consider a stable program, yet. I consider it "relatively" stable. Too, it's only a matter of time before it starts acting up on me. I find too that when I'm creating some "complex" modifiers (in Producer) it seems to get confused more readily than not.

So, it's a thing Photodex needs to still work on (and is). No, you're NOT alone in this. Some of us are just more resigned to its current state because it's much better than it used to be. We get frustrated and yell at the computer (the program actually) . . . get our venting out of the way and then press on. When it really gets bad, I take a break before I break something!

Dale

[chijeff Profile Private message]

Well said Dale, and good to know I am not alone. I think I would be much more tolerant if I felt that Photodex was more receptive to what I consider constructive feedback. I don't think they like to hear that things don't work perfectly. Like you, I have out of neccessity trained myself to click save every few minutes. All of these seem like silly precautions and steps that shouldn't have to be taken. When Producer crashed the other day after that 90 minute render, I yelled 'NO' so loud my dog took off for the second floor and wouldn't come back down! Thanks for assuring me I am not alone. Hopefully Photodex reads these forums once in awhile. I have spent a lot of money on their products over the years!

Thanks

Jeff

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

Actually, for what it's worth, we have found them fairly receptive on bugs and problem issues. If you can create a simple test show of some sort that repeatedly causes a problem, they are pretty good about working on it. It may be a while before the fix shows up in a new version, but they have been responsive. I don't know how closely they monitor these forums, but I do know they periodically do read them. One of the more recent issues has been (especially with video) that there are so many new formats and different flavors of those formats that it is tough to handle them (read the Sony Vegas or other video forums - Photodex is not alone in having issues with the various formats). Yes, it can be frustrating sometimes (back when I started with version 2.1 or some such, it seemed to crash every time I took a breath but it was still the best of the ones I evaluated (I had to put together a memorial for my mother). Yes, it would be nice it Proshow's idea of how to tell you the audio file is corrupted was to give you some warning instead of just leaving town, but it is getting better.

mikey

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I'm with Mikey on this. Photodex has been very receptive to bug reports and such. They've even called me in the past (something that surprised me) in trying to fix or find a solution to the bug. Heck, I've been bug reporting this darned thing for years. Often they're helpful. Once in awhile they aren't (for me tho, that was a long while ago) . . . still, some of the bugs experienced just have to be worked around until fixed by the program.

Yeah, I don't know how long it is before a problem gets fixed after reported. Photodex gives a priority rating to a reported problem. You just have no idea what that priority is. Some bugs are more amenable to immediate fix than others. Some are relegated to the bottom of the pile because they aren't considered all that important. Eventually tho, some of the problems reported actually do go away (I've seen it!)

While there are problems with the program, a number to be sure, it is definitely much better overall (In my opinion) than all of the other similar programs that I tried. At least the program does save a backup regularly, so that's not too bad (I often get a crash before I've gotten around to one of my saves . . . and so have to rely on the program's last backup).

Dale