You have suggested in http://www.adobeforums.com/webx/.3bb8822c that I make all widths 1000. For scanned pictures, I saw no degradation in quality. For pictures I took with my digital SLR, the revised pictures were not as sharp on my screen when I loaded them into a PE2 file, or when I burned them and played them on the TV for a test run. I see that the SLR files are enormous and clearly can be reduced to help in the rendering/burning process. Is there an intermediate level you suggest? What width? What pixels? My ultimate use of my project will projected to a big screen from a projector at a party. I will include some pans, zooming in, and other fun features PE2 offers. As always, thanks.
Photos in video are never going to look as crisp and clear as those directly from cameras, Ned. As I said in the article, you linked to, video is a relatively low resolution medium (essentially 640x480 pixels) so, if you've seen the original photos, the video version is going to be a disappointment.
But it probably looks better than you think, and your audience will be pleased with how it looks on your TV. (Even your computer monitor has a much higher resolution than video, since it's made to viewed from within a foot or so, so your video will likely look pixelated on your computer also.)
You can improve the way your reduced size photos look by selecting the bicubic sharpener option in Photoshop Elements when you resize them -- though that won't make a significant difference in photos for video.
Until we're all using high-def TV, that's just the nature of it.
But, as I said, it probably looks just fine on a TV. You're just used to looking at the high-resolution, crisp originals, so your expectations are higher.