Can II have create a 160 photo slideshow as a looping DVD for a TV set DVD?

I have ~160 digital photos that I would like to run as a looping show for a family party. They range in size from .5 to 1.5 mb. I know each chapter in iDVD5 has a 99 picture limit, so that won't work for me.
I've imported the photos from iPhoto while in iMovieHD, put transitions between them, then imported that project while in iDVD. It had 2 chapters (one with 99 pics) with one chapter set to loop. I burned it and could watch it on my tv's dvd (a Samsung), though it did not loop at all. The DVD wouldn't even play on a Sony DVD player.
I can't quite justify (or afford a Final Cut product), but might have hit the limit of iLife.
G4 867MHz Quicksilver Mac OS X (10.4.3) 1.5 GB RAM, iLife '05

Can I have create a 160 photo slideshow as a looping DVD for a TV set DVD?
Not sure why your iMovie method did not work. If you put your iMovie in the "autoplay" area you see in the map layout of iDVD and set it to "loop" in the advanced menu, it should loop just fine.
http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=164968
If this didn't work on some DVD players, you might try another brand of DVD-R. I like verbatim.
Alternatively, you can make the slideshow in iPhoto and use "Send to iDVD" - this also creates a QT file, so it is not subject to the 99 slide limit.
John B
G5dual2GHz, 550TiBook, 9600>G3Upgraded Mac OS X (10.4.2) 1TB+ Storage

Similar Messages

I have finalized my iMovie photo slideshow and wanted to burn the imovie onto dvd. how can i do this so i can watch it on my television?

i have finalized my iMovie photo slideshow and wanted to burn the imovie onto dvd. how can i do this so i can watch it on my television?

Hi
If there is no iDVD on Your Mac (and it's not on newer Macs as Apple discarded it) then You need a program that can do this.
Your Mac can burn CDs and DVDs - BUT DVD as Data-DVDs not as Video-DVDs - they need a program to be encoded and STRUCTURED as such.
• iDVD is part of the boxed version of iLife'11 and can only be bought outside Apple as on Amazon and e-bay
• DVD Studio pro - Part of FinalCut Studio Pro bundle - this to has expired and can only be bought second handed. (High price and tough learning Curve - but best ever done.)
• Roxio Toast™ - Not as elegant as iDVD - but has many other positive additions (I like it as 10-Pro incl BD-component) (now version 11)
• Burn - only free alternative I know of on internet. Very simple - Just for doing a plain Video-DVD
Burn http://www.digital-digest.com/software/Burn.html
only You can buy from Apple is
• FinalCut Pro-X which also can burn to DVD but without any nice themes.
AppleMan1958
You can also buy Compressor from Apple for $50 US. It will also create DVD and BluRay but without the nice themes.
Yours Bengt W

I have created a 12 minutes slideshow on imovies and on idvd. I want to show it to my relatives in Europe. What is the best way for me to do this? utube?

I have created a 12 minute slideshow on imovies and burned it through idvd. I would like to share it with my relatives in Europe. what would be the best means of doing this? uTube? any other ideas?

You could put it on Youtube, but then they don't have a cop saved to their drive. You could also upload it to your Dropbox and make it public. Note the size of the file, Dropbox and Youtube can only handle such big files, and if your family has a good internet connection (download/playback speeed over bandwith).

I have created a form that contains fields with default text for a user to update/personalize. Is there a way to style the text so I can quickly identify changes to default text in a field?

I have created a form that contains fields with default text for a user to update/personalize. Is there a way to style the text so I can quickly identify changes to default text in a field?

George - Thanks you so much! Actually, i'd love for the text color to be red font color. Could you send me the script for that? And I assume I just copy and paste the script into the field properties (see screenshot)?
thanks again!
Seth

I have created an iMovie file and have created an iDVD menu file. I am now ready to burn a DVD. But my superdirve is broken. If I put my files on a mac without iMovie or iDVD, can I burn my DVD with Toast 11?

I have created an iMovie file and have created an iDVD menu file. I am now ready to burn a DVD. But my superdirve is broken. If I put my files on a mac without iMovie or iDVD, can I still burn my DVD with Toast 11?

no need for Toast ..
tell iDVD to create a disk-image
transfer dmg to othe Mac
launch the Disk Utility, burn that dmg .......

I can't figure out how to export the information files I have created with the photos in iphoto. any help?

Is there a way to export files created for photos? I seem to have no problem exporting photos but the information I have about them cannot be found in teh exported version.

There is no way to do that. Later versions of iPhoto can export with all the metadata written to the IPTC and Exif metadata.
Regards
TD

Creating Apple TV photo slideshow in Windows/Converting .mov to Apple TV

I have a newly purchased 160 GB Apple TV and am having some difficulty creating a slideshow. Ideally, Apple would offer iPhoto for Windows or I would own a Mac, but neither is currently true.
So, what is the best/easiest/cheapest way to create an iPhoto-esque slideshow in Windows XP? (transitions and audio track)
In my initial attempts to accomplish this task, I have created a slideshow using QuickTime. I opened a music file in QuickTime, then opened an Image Sequence in QuickTime, then copied the image sequence and Added and Scaled to the audio track. Finally, I saved this "slideshow" as a QuickTime movie (.mov). This isn't ideal, because there are no transitions and if the photos aren't all landscape it's troublesome. Nonetheless, I tried to open this QuickTime Movie then use the Export to Apple TV conversion process. Unfortunately, QuickTime basically just freezes when I try this. The progress bar never moves from 0%. Any advice here?
Thanks.
DIY - AMD 64 Windows XP Pro

Welcome to Apple Discussions.
The simplest way to make a slideshow without adobe photo elements is simply to put collections of photos into folders and sync them to the tv. tv will allow you to add transitions and add a soundtrack from any music you also have synced. In the current version of tv the ending of the slideshow is a little abrupt but I'm sure it will improve in future versions.
I can't think why QT won't convert your QT (slideshow) movies, perhaps you can tell us a little about the movie. Open in QT, open the movie info window and post back the info you find there.

Creating Hgh Resolution photo slideshow to upload to youtube

Hi, I've created a slideshow in iPhoto with 55 photos and a song to go with it. The highest export resolution there is is 640*480 and it comes out very blurry (especially when you try to enlarge it to full screen).
When i decided to try iDVD i realized it only exports to a dvd format and not to any kind of media that i can upload to you tube.
I don't think iMovie has a better option either.
All I'm looking for is to create a high resolution slideshow from my photos to share on youtube.
Does anyone have any suggestions....? I will be very grateful.

The following approach of creating a QT movie slideshow will give you the option of specifying a higher resolution in its width and height settings. Here's an example of a fast loading, looping embedded slideshow (not mine):
http://www.heese-cadieux.com
...and done like this:
iPhoto > select photos > File > Export... > QuickTime tab ...set width and height, etc.
Then iWeb > Media button > Movies tab ...drag in your movie created above by iPhoto.
Then iWeb > Inspector > QuickTime tab ...settings.
Note: The above generates a QT slideshow of small file size and thus appears quickly in a web browser. But the transitions are limited to a simple "fade in and fade out" — no Ken Burns effect, etc.

How do i save a calender i have created with the photo and the dates saved on separate pages?

how do i save a calender i have created in photoshop with the photo and the dates saved as two separate pages? when i save as pdf or jpeg they are authomatically saving 1 pg with the photo and dates on one page. This is causing problems when i print.

Hi there, in case your printer cannot print very large, you can also crop down two versions and print them as separate documents.
1) Create a guide where you would like to split the pages by clicking on the ruler (hit command R if they are not showing) and dragging to the desired area.
Creating the guide will make it so you can be precise in the way you split up your page, and so that no part of the image will be repeated or lost.
2) Select the Crop Tool and fit the crop area to the top half of your calendar, using the guide you've just made to snap to the right spot. Hit return to finalize the crop.
3) Go to File > Save As. Name the file something like calendar_top and select the desired file format. Hit "Save."
4) Once you get back to your calendar file, Go to the History panel and select "Drag Guide." This will take you back to the step before you cropped the image.
5) Repeat the steps as before for the bottom half of the calendar, once again using the guide to help you make your crop area.
So then you would just print each of the two pages individually. The images will not be contained within one document, but if you have Acrobat you could combine the files.
I hope this helps!

Can i make a project with photo slideshows and videos mixed?

Hi, I just bought my mac yesterday, i'm new at everything then. I want to know if i can make a movie with photo slideshows and videos in between. For example, i would like to place all my photos and videos from a trip in chronological order, so when i click play there's going to be like ten photos, then a 2minute video, then photos again and so on... which program or application do you recommend for this?

I want to know if i can make a movie with photo slideshows and videos in between. For example, i would like to place all my photos and videos from a trip in chronological order, so when i click play there's going to be like ten photos, then a 2minute video, then photos again and so on... which program or application do you recommend for this?
Per your description, this should not be a problem from within iMovie '08. Adding slideshows created in iPhoto (contain "Tween" tracks that iMovie '08 doesn't like) or dropping too many photos on top of a single video clip (iMovie '08 can be touchy about initial placement of dropped photos) can, however, create potential problems.

How can I add music to my photo slideshow

How can I add music to my photo slideshow

You can only select one track via the slideshow button in the Photos app. If you have a long slideshow then you can start music playing in the iPod app and then switch into Photos and start a (no-music) slideshow.

How can I have control of my photos?

Ok, please someone tell me this.
I've been fighting this iPhoto battle for years. My problem is that I want to manage my own photos on my external drive where I am backing them up on time machine. I don't want them tangled inside iPhoto's individual users Libraries. Because of this, I uncheck the option that asks if I want them copied to the Library when importing. I understand this means I am using a 'referenced library'.
Why won't iPhoto allow me to delete these referenced files? Why? I know it could do it, but it seems that they have designed it so that it won't. I can see that people might complain that iPhoto is removing their outside files... yes. But make it a hidden option. With red flags and waving hands. Make it a special key stroke. Something, anything please! I want control of my photos.
To top it off, when I import photos with my camera, I would love to use iPhoto because it is concise and straightforward. The problem is that it (again) wants to bury the camera imported photos into the users' iPhoto Libraries. Why no option to import the files from the camera to a specified location (i.e. my external hard disk library of photos)? Why? I know it could, but it won't.
I have lost photos this way. My wife uses iPhoto to import photos and they go into her iPhoto library. When I think that all my photos are safe in the photos directory on my external hard disk (where they belong) I am hurt to find out that there were some lost files hidden in one or more of the users Libraries. Oh the horror!
So in the end, if I want to use iPhoto, I have to import the photos with a different application that will put them in the folder I want. This drives my wife crazy. "Why can't we use iPhoto to import them?" She asks. I say that apple wont let us do it.
She asks "Why can't I delete these duplicate photos, and the ones I don't like? They keep coming back each time we import." Again, I say, Apple won't let us do it. We have to use the finder and look through them one by one, painful and slow as it is.
If there are no solutions to these problems, I am soon to be jumping off the iPhoto bandwagon (Picasa?) and losing a little faith in the Tao of Apple.
Cheers.

First, thanks for your responses. Sorry if I sounded snarky. Guess that is what happens when you bang your head against a wall
Terence Devlin wrote:
When you decide to run a Referenced Library you are saying to iPhoto, "Don't touch those files, I'll manage them". So, iPhoto won't touch them on the way in and won't touch them on the way out. Consistency. After all you "want control of my photos". Don't you?
Yes. This is the struggle I suppose. I want to use iPhoto as an interface to my photo library. I want it to give me the control to do whatever I want with my photos. Delete them, modify them, resize them, etc. And yes of course, view them.
Terence Devlin wrote:
Is there a reason why you insist on running referenced Libraries? You've heard of sharing, right?
Yes. We actually have soft links setup to use a single shared iPhoto Library. This works well so that any changes/albums I make are immediately available to the other user accounts on our Mac. The problem is that we like to keep our photos in specific directories that are organized on our external drive. When we copy them to the iPhoto Library all the work we do on them (modifying etc) does not affect the 'actual' original files. It only affects the iPhoto copy. Again, this goes back to the fact that we want iPhoto to be an interface to our photos.
LarryHN wrote:
One of (the many) things you fail to comprehend is that iPhoto is a relational database and all relational databases must totally control their data - you can not manage the address book database - or an oracle database - or filemaker - etc etc etc - relational databases must be carefully structured and controlled - iPhoto is no different
I imagine that in this relational database there is a pointer to the location of the original file. Or is the entire file stored in the database? If the file is stored in the database, I can understand this would be a bit more difficult to implement (deleting referenced files, that is). However if only a pointer to the file location is stored, it seems it would be easy to allow the program to delete the referenced file. Plus, it should be faster if the database only stores the link, right? Storing the entire file in my experience can slow the performance. If it stores the link, deleting the file referenced by the link should have no adverse effects on the integrity of the relational database contents.
LarryHN wrote:
You either need to use iPhoto the way it works or find another program that works like you want - Ranting to other users about your own personal preferences that do not match most others is futile and a total waste of your time and ours
Yes, they are my own personal preferences as a user. They are functionality I would love to see in the iPhoto product, and I was hoping there was a slim chance that they do exist and that I was just overlooking them. You have made it clear that the product I am looking for to provide an interface to my photo library is apparently not iPhoto. That is too bad. All it would take to please me as a user is for two simple functions:
- Ability to delete referenced files.
- Ability to import from the camera to a specified location.
Also, I am sure that my needs do match the needs of others. I am not alone with these issues. I have come across similar issues before in my search for these answers. Perhaps others will chime in on this thread.
I will check out Aperture.
Yes, my question has been answered. The answer still remains - "Apple won't let us do it". I'm really hoping there is a big 'yet' at the end of this.

Can't have more than one photo desktop..

I am merely trying to have more than one photo on my desktop. I select the event in iphoto with the pictures, hit share and set desktop. Nothing. One picture makes it on. Settings for desktop pop up and then nothing happens...
Is there something wrong with iphoto or is it me??

Well, from the Preferences>Desktop & ScreenSaver option you can select multiple photos from iPhoto to display pictures (one at a time) at various intervals from 5 seconds to once a day....
I'm not sure how it would work by doing it from iPhoto, but the folder you see above was on my Finder with a selected set of pictures in it that I saved from iPhoto into that folder. I clicked on the "+" that you see in the picture above, and it went to my Finder to allow me to select a new folder. I selected the one that you see there now "Photo Artwork", then set the options below to Change the picture every 5 mintues and to display them in Random Order.
That would do the trick for you. Sorry I don't know more about how to do it from iPhoto. If you post your question in the iPhoto forum, I'm certain that the experts there would probably be able to answer the question you posed above....
Hope this is of some help....
Cheers,
GB

Can I have "All spots to process" checked at all times, even for new spot colors?

When I check “All spots to process” in the pdf export settings and save my settings the settings remember that I've checked this option. But, if new spot color objects using new spot color swatches are added to the document (or another document) and I go into the pdf export settings the check mark has been changed into a dash (with the actual checkbox highlighted) – signifying that only some of of the spot colors will be changed to process colors during export. I absolutely fail to see how this could possibly be seen as a feature and not a bug … if the user has checked “ALL spots to process” wouldn't the user expect ALL spots to be converted to process colors, rather than just any spot colors that happened to be in the document that happened to be open when the user first checked that checkbox and saved that setting?
Am I missing something here? What's the point of even having that checkbox as part of your saved export settings if it doesn't include any other spot colors than those used when saving the settings?
What's the point of having settings if you can't trust them, and still need to manually "override" them every time?
I see that some users have taken to writing scripts that instead turn all spot colors in the swatch panel to process colors, and while I commend them for creating that workaround, I'm still pissed at Adobe for not getting the function right.
If this is a feature, who is it for? People who want to add just certain spot colors and turn those into process colors rather than turning all spot colors into process colors are surely better off doing that in the swatches panel, where they're in total control of what's what. And if they don't want to "permanently" change their spot colors to process colors, and prefer to (temporarily) convert them during exporting/printing only, they can do that in the ink manager. But when someone checks convert "All spots to process" couldn't we safely assume they really want ALL spot colors to be converted and not just some of them? I mean, the way that checkbox behaves now, it's like it's a button and not a checkbox. As in: hit the button "All spots to process" to switch all currently viewed spot colors to process colors in the ink manager, OR check the "All spots to process" checkbox to always convert ALL spot colors to process colors during exporting/printing.
Anyone got any light to shed on this?
And is there a way to actually get the advertised behavior, because if you have to run a script every time you export/print you might as well just manually select the checkbox every time instead, but either way it's just really unnecessary as far as I'm concerned … Adobe should get the feature right instead.
If you save a setting and recall it, it shouldn't be possible for that setting to change into something else (in this case changing a checkmark to a dash).
Clearly CMYK printing is the norm, so for most users it would make a lot of sense to have the "All spots to process" checked most of the time, and then you just go into the swatches panel or the ink manager and set things correctly for those print jobs that really do need spot colors.
I myself am not one of those who add spot colors to my swatches unless I'm really using them as spot colors, but I often work with magazines and folders featuring adverts made by whoever, and typically there's always at least one advert that features spot colors, and therefore it would be very nice if the "All spots to process" feature actually worked as advertised without any required actions from me.
We stopped sending ads back to the advertisers for adjustments a long time ago, unless we absolutely had to, because there were so many things wrong with so many ads that it was simply too much work to write back and explain everything to people who most of the time didn't even understand what we were talking about. We found that it was usually a LOT faster and easier to just adapt the ads ourselves, as long as it was something that could be worked out really quickly from within InDesign itself, which pretty much included most typical errors.
But with this feature I find Adobe is trying to make my job harder rather than easier, and it's pissing me off. Arrrghh… ;-)

But It's not a preference it's a shortcut
It's a bad joke, is what it is. ;-)
So, why in your opinion should it be presented the way it is? I keep saying in it's current functionality it shouldn't be presented the way it is (and that: if it is, it shouldn't work the way it does). If it's not a preference or even a proper checkbox, why present it that way?
If you put it right next to the table at the top of the window (so that it's directly associated with that information, rather than information right above it) and just called the checkbox “Spot(s) to process” and had it only visually reflect the content of the sleected spot colors in the table, then I'd see your point with likening it to the “Hyphenate” checkbox.
If a story has two selected paragraphs that uses two different hyphenation settings then the checkbox should present the way it does now, but if you hit the checkbox so that both paragraphs now use hyphenation and create a third paragraph inbetween the two previous ones it better inherit that setting and not turn off hyphenation for the new paragraph (unless of course there's a defined next paragraph style that switches to a style with hyphenation turned off). And if that checkbox said “Hyphenate all paragraphs” instead, then I would expect it to do just that, and not just the selected ones, and not just the current paragraphs but quite literally all paragraphs even newly created ones – otherwise it doesn't do what it says it does, and simply shouldn't be labeled that way.
And seriously bad interface design aside, you'd have to rename “All spots to process” to “Switch all currently displayed spot swatches listed in the table above to process” to actually describe what that checkbox does. So even if you're a fan of the current functionality, as opposed to one that actually lets the user set and forget a setting like that, and think it's better that users manually check it repeatedly (which I'm not saying that you are, but you're not giving me any feedback suggesting you even see my point of view with any of this, so what do I know?), then why wouldn't you still support an interface that visually matches/signals that functionality better? If it's a “Select all” checkbox supplementing a table containing a column of checkboxes, then present it that way. Don't put it at the bottom of the window next to another checkbox that works just like a regular checkbox and label it “All spots to process” – because that way you are signalling a different behavior.
Seriously, if I was to do design using the same mentality that Adobe uses when designing their user interfaces it wouldn't be long before I lost all clients. There's a lot to be said for de facto monopolies, I suppose. Oh no, there's nothing wrong with the design, just as long as you accept it on it's own terms and don't compare it to anything relevant, and just as long as you give people enough time to understand and accept it … and surrender to it.
For real … I wouldn't win one single pitch that way.
Today's threads have in many ways been a thorough reminder of the following quote from the second link I provided:
Is there an Internet rule yet stating that even the most obviously indefensible mistake will eventually be defended by someone somewhere? Awful marketing efforts get explained as genius viral campaigns, broken features become solutions.
And whether or not you're able to see my point of view or not is really besides the point too.
The real point was, and remains to be:
That for those who receive lots of ads or other external files that may or may not contain spot colors it would be far more useful to be able to set a checkbox to always convert all spots to process when exporting, than the current functionality is (and I'm not suggesting eliminating the current functionality, just change so it's presented like what it really is, and then just let that separate checkbox do what it says) … causing unnecessary manual action on the user's behalf shouldn't be the business of Adobe – preventing it should.
And here's further reading on the subject of bad Adobe interface design for those who might feel so inclined. ;-)
Cheers!

HT201317 I constantly have to sign into Photo Stream on my MacBook. How do you set up Photo Stream to be autonomous on MacBooks?

I'm always signed into iCloud, and I always have 'checked' enable photo stream and automatic import. Does anyone know why I sometimes have to sign into Photo Stream (on my MacBook) when I'm wanting to import photos from my iPhone (over Wi-Fi) to my MacBook?

If you enabled photo stream on your PC after you did so on your iPad, you would only get photos from the last 30 days as photo stream only keeps your photos for 30 days (even they remain longer on your device). Chances are the missing photos were added to photo stream more than 30 days prior to you enabling photo stream on your PC, and as such they are no longer in your photo stream.
To transfer the missing photos from your computer, can them to the camera roll on your iPad (tap Edit, tap all the photos, tap Share, tap Save to Camera Roll), then import them to your computer as explained here: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4083.

Can II have create a 160 photo slideshow as a looping DVD for a TV set DVD?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for