Questions on next version 5.6

[Igor]

We think that "Original size" mode brings a lot of problems:

For authors and viewers:

- If you create a slide with several objects that all have "Original size" mode, these objects won't be correctly placed at different screen resolutions.

- Impossible to correctly export slideshow for DVD, Youtube, iPhone, because of lower video file resolution (480 x 320) - all objects will be shown incorrectly.

For us as developers:

- The more and more difficult to support it with all new added features. It vastly complicates the code of PicturesToExe.

So I suggest to replace "Original size" mode with more better mode. We can make possible for authors to set size of slides in pixels. For example, you can choose 800x600. It's still fullscreen slideshow, but area of slide limited by size 800x600. Other parts of screen around the slide has black color.

In "Objects and animation" editor you use "Fit to slide" or "Cover slide" mode (size and position in percents) and if you need exact pixel-to-pixel mapping of images to display you use 800x600 image at 100% size.

If display has 800x600 screen resolution you see this image on entire screen.

If display 1024x768 you see black strips around the image which still displayed without resamping (pixel in pixel).

Benefits:

- Correct placement of objects at any screen resolution.

- Creating video for iPhone, Youtube without any problems.

- Exact mapping of image pixels to display pixels, sharp picture without resizing/resamping, as earlier.

For old projects we will add auto conversion for "Original sized" objects to new format.

What you think?

[xahu34]

Igor,

I would like to see this change. Do you think of an option to configure all slides in the way you propose (but also for the other choices) at the same time, via the project options?

Another question (hopefully not too annoying): Will there be animated mask objects in the next version, and what about simulated full screen mode for users with ATI cards?

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[fh1805]

When building my sequences, I've never found a need to use anything other than "Fit to slide"; so any changes made to "Original size" will not impact on me. As an ex-computer programmer, I'll support anything that makes code easier to maintain and modify.

regards,

Peter

[xahu34]

Question: What will happen to a slide of size 1200x800 when using a projector with 1024x768 pixels?

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Igor]

Xaver,

Will there be animated mask objects in the next version

Already done and works perfectly. Please wait for Beta 1.

and what about simulated full screen mode for users with ATI cards?

In v5.6 we'll add this simulated fullscreen mode and it will solve problem with adjusted desktop gamma on ATI video cards.

I'd like to enable this option by default, but on slow video cards, or on too heavy slideshows with big images and animation it works slower than in true fullscreen mode. Simple slideshows like my "PteShow" works fine in both modes. Let try and test it when Beta 1 will be published.

[xahu34]

...Already done and works perfectly. Please wait for Beta 1. (referring to masks) ...

In v5.6 we'll add this simulated fullscreen mode and it will solve problem with adjusted desktop gamma on ATI video cards.

Igor,

I am very pleased to read this!

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Igor]

Xaver,

What will happen to a slide of size 1200x800 when using a projector with 1024x768 pixels?

It better to discuss. Reduce slide to fit to display or show in its original size.

[Igor]

What will happen to a slide of size 1200x800 when using a projector with 1024x768 pixels?

It better to discuss. Reduce slide to fit to display or show in its original size.

I just talked with Aleksey, we consider that better to reduce slide to fit to display with slide size lesser than display (for example if slide size 1600x1200 and display is 1280x1024). In other words slide can displayed in its original size (not larger) or be reduced on small displays (say iPhone/Youtube for video export)

[Barry Beckham]

I must be a bit slow Igor, but I am struggling a bit with what you propose.

Correct me if I am wrong, but if I create a 1024*768 slide show and choose 1024*768 in pixels as you suggest, then it will display correctly at 1024*768 on higher resolution monitors but will have a black areas around the outside edge. The image will not automatically be expanded to play on a larger resolution monitor as it can do now. That edge or gap is what I often fill with a png frame.

If I have this right, what conrol will we have on that black area? You wouldn't want a wedding slide show produced on a black background for example or even the slide show I have just posted. (The Art of Cornwall) Place those types of shows on black and you lose 50% or more of the appeal.

Will we be able to control the colour of that border is or even add textures as we did in PTE4?

[JPD]

Igor, to day, the best way to make a perfect technical slideshow is to put a little transparent gif file for instance height=960 and width=2 pixels if my pictures are 1280 x 960.

I put this file call in french "Cale" as parent of all the others objects of the slide. This "Cale" is fit to format and all the others objects are in original mode and position in pixels. So that it's the "Cale" which give the value to resize to all the others objects.

It's easier like that and a better result that have all the objects in fit or cover the format and position in percents.

Imagine an object put at 75% in horizontal pan which have a child also at 75% in horizontal pan where it is in the screen : it depend of the width of the parent object and you have to do several multiplication to find.

With the cale and position in pixel, I have only addition (and not multiplications) to do and if the centers are at 0, I can change the size of the parent without changing the child.

It's very easy with this method to have exactly the same in PTE than in Photoshop or other, you just have to have paire size and put an entire number, try to do so easy with percents.

Another thing from one screen definition to another, the real format can change because it's always a paire value, so a format of 1.5 will be exactly 1.5 on a 1152 x 864 screen definition, it will be a little different value with a 1600 x 1200 defintion and the resize with fit or cover to format depend sommetimes from the width of the format and sometimes of the height of the format. With this method it depend always of the height as you do for text, tiled background picture and copyright logo which can be use also as a mask for instance.

At least it's absolutely neccesary to keep an ascendant compatibility for all slideshows made with V5, when we do slideshows we can hope they will be ok for years, that's not absolutely right to day because of Microsoft (some problems appears on Vista), but we can hope that PTE will not be a problem more, Microsoft is enough

Hundreds slideshows are made with this method in France most of them are in this list (all are made with PTE).

We need to have an original mode.

Note it would be better if all calculations depend always of the same value (height for instance) and not depending sometimes of the width sometimes of the height (I haven't test this function since 5.0)

I have forgot, there is another advantage with this method, if my original "Cale" is 960, I have just to change it with another of 1067 x 2 (960/0.9) with the same name and all the slides are reduiced at 90% without doing something else, very easy for DVD.

[JPD]

If display 1024x768 you see black strips around the image which still displayed without resamping (pixel in pixel).

About resampling, it seems to day you first resample all objects and then build the final picture. This method make some default and these default often depend of the graphic card and, of course, the screen definition.

Would it be possible to build a picture for a parent with all its child and after resize only the parent (ie the result).

An exemple imagine you cut your pictures in 16 verticals rectangles in order to make an effect, if the picture is built at its nominale size, it's perfect with PTE, if you resize a global result it would be also perfect, if you resize each object then add them as to day, there are sometimes some problems. The last one which have this problem is here (not mine, but from Francis Demange)

[JPD]

Xaver,

Already done and works perfectly. Please wait for Beta 1.

Will it be possible that the mask is the result of several others mask, with all the option of a normal object (PZR ect), for instance 2 circles which move differently in order to make two spotligts, it's only an exemple, hundreds ideas and effects would be possible, Most of effects could be simulate inside a slide.

Would it be possible that the mask is put on the resulting image of a parent (see above) with its child or will it be objects by objects (it's not the same result.

Would it be possible to use the same mask for several objects and will what you call mask have 256 levels of opacity as an alpha layer do.

Mask could have the same structure as object have : parent-child, we would have to say which object (parent or child) is the mask to use.

Read here

[Guest Yachtsman1]

This is all very well for the experts/super users but I think that adding further complications can bewilder the already bewildered and prevent existing users from up-grading in case they get lost in the added technology. I put a colleague onto PTE earlier this week, he is 93 years of age and been involved with photography and conventional AV all his life. Don't make PTE an eliteist programme that only benefits the experts.

Yachtsman1

PS

As an example of what I am talking about I will relate what happened to me ealier this week, I visited a dedicated digital camera club, there was a laptop and digital projector available, the regulars showed their current AV shows, some in Pro Phow Gold and others in PTE, The quality of most was not what I have come to expect and definately below par. It came the time to show my effort, produced in PTE 5.5 a couple of months ago. My show was abysmal, jerky missing transitions and totally unlike how it shows on my computer. It was obviously the laptop that was not able to cope with the 5.5 version. I hasten to add, all my slides were sized at 1024x768 and around 150kb. Following my show an RPS AV member showed one of his, produced using PTE 4.??, it showed perfectly. A real advance would be to add a spell-checker to forum posts.

[Conflow]

Igor

I completely agree with your 'new approach' concerning Slide Size Compatibility to suit most new Media Formats

in that the user can choose 'Pixel Sizing' to give the best compromise with his/her chosen reproduction Media.

For some time now I had concern's that PTE was becomming "All-things to All men" ~ and was starting to loose its

operational effectiveness and usage simplicity which are the bedrock of all good software Programs.

There are those who will disagree with your decision because they want you to accomodate their Camera Image Size

(no International Standards) as others want you to accomodate their Projector Image Size and others want to use U-Tube

and iPod Format and various DVD Formats (inc) Blue-Ray and normal, not to mention Standard Pal/Ntsc TV and where do

you draw the line with HD-TV Standards (in a total mess) and the oncoming Regional Digital TV Systems and other devices?

Where does it all end ??? and I have not scraped the end of the Barrel...yet!

The use of 'black-borders' and 'png-masks' is a user choice it is not a PTE specification because this is a production issue

in the final making of the A/V Show and the final "user-choice" as to what Media Presentation Format he/she wishes to use.

Giving the user the choice of 'Image Pixel Sizing' is the only logical way of putting PTE back on course.

Kind regards,

Brian.Conflow.

P.S I note Yachtsman got here before me...he has made the point !

[JPD]

This is all very well for the experts/super users but I think that adding further complications can bewilder the already bewildered and prevent existing users from up-grading in case they get lost in the added technology

It's easy to keep basic function very easy to use for everybody and add some more complex function without disturb beginners. It's only a problem to solve in the menu.

[Barry Beckham]

I have to say that I have difficulty dealing with theory and I would love to test the idea in the real world by diving into a project using the proposed method.

Is that a possibility a beta or test bed version?

[cjdnzl]

This is all very well for the experts/super users but I think that adding further complications can bewilder the already bewildered and prevent existing users from up-grading in case they get lost in the added technology. I put a colleague onto PTE earlier this week, he is 93 years of age and been involved with photography and conventional AV all his life. Don't make PTE an eliteist programme that only benefits the experts.

Yachtsman1

PS

As an example of what I am talking about I will relate what happened to me ealier this week, I visited a dedicated digital camera club, there was a laptop and digital projector available, the regulars showed their current AV shows, some in Pro Phow Gold and others in PTE, The quality of most was not what I have come to expect and definately below par. It came the time to show my effort, produced in PTE 5.5 a couple of months ago. My show was abysmal, jerky missing transitions and totally unlike how it shows on my computer. It was obviously the laptop that was not able to cope with the 5.5 version. I hasten to add, all my slides were sized at 1024x768 and around 150kb. Following my show an RPS AV member showed one of his, produced using PTE 4.??, it showed perfectly. A real advance would be to add a spell-checker to forum posts.

I was caught like that - but only once! I now take my own laptop everywhere I am going to show an AV. If the host machine is not up to the job, I politely insist on using my own. I use the excuse that the show is already on my machine, and it avoids loading it onto their machine. Of course, if their projector is a VGA model at 800*600, the show will be compromised anyway. My next purchase, whenI have saved the necessary, is a good projector so I am self-contained, and can do shows anywhere.

Colin

[xahu34]

... the best way to make a perfect technical slideshow is to put a little transparent gif file for instance height=960 and width=2 pixels if my pictures are 1280 x 960. I put this file call in french "Cale" as parent of all the others objects of the slide....Hundreds slideshows are made with this method in France....

Hello JPD,

Knowing a little bit the way you program your shows, I can understand that you like the construction with the wedge (cale), as it forces the player to resample a slide in a single step. This will lead (for example) to better results if the slide is composed of adjacent pieces.

I actually would be sorry it a new version of PTE would be incompatible with your former work.

In your post above you try to give the impression that the wedge/cale construction were one of the most naturals things in the world. In my eyes, this is not the case. I rather consider it as a trick for specialists, but not as a typical method for the standard PTE user.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[JPD]

Hello JPD,

Knowing a little bit the way you program your shows, I can understand that you like the construction with the wedge (cale), as it forces the player to resample a slide in a single step. This will lead (for example) to better results if the slide is composed of adjacent pieces.

I actually would be sorry it a new version of PTE would be incompatible with your former work.

In your post above you try to give the impression that the wedge/cale construction were one of the most naturals things in the world. In my eyes, this is not the case. I rather consider it as a trick for specialists, but not as a typical method for the standard PTE user.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

Xaver, I think that it's easier to work the objects at the same scale, it's more normal, even for a not specialist, it's easier to add or substract than multiplicate or divide, even for me. So it would be possible to say in PTE I work for instance with 1280 x 960 and have all objects put for a such definition and when the work is finish, PTE adapt the final picture at the screen definition, it seem me very logical and it's what I do with "Cales", and I am not alone to work such a way. As I say there are many slidshows made like that.

If Igor find a method which give the same result I am OK. I want to know if you agree with me it's better to have only one reference (for instance height) than two (height and width) which aren't exeactly in the same ratio if you don't use the same screen definition.

I want to have in the future the same quality with PTE than those I have today, I think than everybody must think the same thing (at least, I hope).

I did don't try to give the impression that the wedge/cale construction were one of the most naturals things in the world, I only say it was the best technical way to day, and if I use cale it's in order to have only one reference in order to have the best result as possible, that only what I said, no more.

When I explain in french forums that's it's better to have paire size picture, you could also say it's not as a typical method for the standard PTE user, that's right but when we explain to people why, they generally understand and work with paire size pictures.

When we can work better, I think it's quite normal to do it.

May be the idea of the cale can be put inside PTE (or a similar calculation), why not ? At least there wouldn't be problems to resize a slideshow to put it inside the safe zone and I wouldn't have to explain each week how to do.

My problem is that's difficult for me to explain here what is absolutely clear in my head to have a very simple product which is abble to be better than professionnal one. Every day I help beginners, I am probably the one who have help the more people, most of them are beginners, so I well know there problems and I want that PTE is easy to use for them, it will be also easier for me.

[JEB]

Jean-Pierre,

I wonder if it would help people (it certainly would be appreciated by me) if you were able to put together a short, basic tutorial of your method.

I suspect there a lot of people like myself who do not FULLY understand what is being discussed here.

Generally I am more than happy to let those of you who are more competent and able to take the lead and represent the general view but I would like to have a clearer understanding of all that is being proposed.

Regards

John

[JPD]

I think, it would be a solution which consist to give to PTE a nominal height, the width would be calculate with this value and the format we choice. when a picture is exactly the size of the height and its width exactly the value PTE calculate, it take all the format, if it is smaller it take a place proportionnal to its size and if it's larger the part outside the format will not appears.

An option for the format could be for all the slideshow :

- ajust the format to the screen definition

- keep the original size (would be usefull for video-projector is you make a stereo slideshow or a panoramic slideshow with 2 or more video-projector)

- keep the original size if screen definition is highter than the format, else ajust the format to the screen definition.

- reduce format at 90% or another value (for DVD for instance)

It would not have choice between fit to format, cover the format and original mode for objects, all would be in original mode for original screen definition, some mistakes to day possible wouldn't be possible (as having some objects at level one in original mode and others in fit to format or position in pixels and other in percents)

The value in percent or in pixels would always be for a height which would be define.

It's seem to me to be the simplest way to have a perfect work without using cales.

Nota with this method, it would be possible to make a 1920 x 1080 slideshow on a display with 1024 x 768 screen definition, it exactly what I can do to day.

Only one thing : it would be necessary to have the value of the calculated width at the paire value just under the theorical value in order to never see the background with a nominal size picture.

John, I'll try to do an exemple to morrow, but you can download several templates on my page which use this method

[d67]

We think that "Original size" mode brings a lot of problems:

For authors and viewers:

- If you create a slide with several objects that all have "Original size" mode, these objects won't be correctly placed at different screen resolutions.

............

What you think?

Sorry Igor but it is very hard for a basic PTE user to understand what you are meaning and asking for !

Reading all the thread does not help in any way to make sense of what the problem is and to be honest ... it is even more confusing !

I fully agree with yachtsmann1 remark about PTE V5 behaviour.

Until now, I continue to create my slideshows with PTE V4 as I have no problem running them, even on power lesser PC's as mine !

All my attempts to create slideshows with PTE V5 with very simple transitions (no Pan, zoom or rotate) lead to minor problems which nead to look at tutorials or ask for help to more confident users.

Not a big problem but very time consuming.

PTE V4 is, at his end stage, a very robust program, with predictable behaviour and, first of all, very easy and self explanatory to deal with (no tutorial or help file needed... just try).

PTE V5 is much powerfull, particularily concerning effects, but needs a minimum of time investment to understand it's manipulation. Even if you accept this, problems are numerous and sometimes unpredictable (just read forums). The competitor (Photodex Proshow) is in comparison much more pleasant and easy to use for a discutable loss of image quality.

This thread is a headache producer and for sure will move away those who are looking for a friendly handling software

Patrick

[xahu34]

Sorry Igor but it is very hard for a basic PTE user to understand what you are meaning and asking for ...

...The competitor (Photodex Proshow) is in comparison much more pleasant and easy to use for a discutable loss of image quality...

I think that the basic users are not the audience which is addressed by this thread. The real competitors (providing HW-rendering) in my opinion are m.objects and Wings Platinum, both highly priced, and the are by no means easier to handle.

Xaver Huber

Munich

[Lin Evans]

Hi Patrick,

What Igor is referring to is that when "original mode" is used with objects and people have either different screen resolutions than the one creating the show or when the resolution is changed by creating DVD, AVI, etc., the objects will not behave as expected.

For example, I created a small animation of rainfall with a jet airplane crossing the sky and going in and out behind some clouds. The clouds were small PNG duplicates ovelaying the background clouds on the base jpg image. In the executable code everything worked perfectly as expected but when I created an AVI/DVD the cloud objects were displaced in position from their original place perfectly overlaying their counterparts on the background jpg. I had used "original" size for the png objects and "fit to slide" for the background jpg and cover png files.

This in no way makes PTE more "difficult" it simply is a discussion about features which many may never use but which are important for users who choose to do fancy animations using PNG objects.

I would agree with Xaver about PTE being much more akin to Wings Platinum and m.objects than Proshow Producer. I would have to disagree that Proshow Producer is "easier" to use. In fact, many things which can "easily" be done with PTE are quite difficult and some impossible to do with Producer and as you know the image quality isn't even remotely comparable.

There is nothing preventing anyone from simply using version 4.8, etc., for producing slideshows - we have the best of both worlds. We have incredible power with PTE 5.5 and a relatively simple to use older version which isn't going away. I find the majority of the "problems" people are having with PTE 5.5, etc., stem from user error or misunderstandings not from program bugs. In fact, PTE 5.5 is one of the most stable of all presentation slideshow software availble. Producer is MUCH less stable than PTE.

As power increases so does complexity and the need for one to thoroughly acquaint oneself with the user guide if they wish to avail themselves of the additional features and power. If the need is to only make simple, elegant slideshows with no fancy animations, etc., then that is easily accomplished with little need to study the documentation and experiment.

What more could we ask for than the simplicity of 4.8 and the elegance and power of 5.5? We indeed have the best of both worlds and it just keeps getting better!

Best regards,

Lin

Sorry Igor but it is very hard for a basic PTE user to understand what you are meaning and asking for !

Reading all the thread does not help in any way to make sense of what the problem is and to be honest ... it is even more confusing !

[d67]

What Igor is referring to is that when "original mode" is used with objects and people have either different screen resolutions than the one creating the show or when the resolution is changed by creating DVD, AVI, etc., the objects will not behave as expected.

For example, I created a small animation of rainfall with a jet airplane crossing the sky and going in and out behind some clouds. The clouds were small PNG duplicates ovelaying the background clouds on the base jpg image. In the executable code everything worked perfectly as expected but when I created an AVI/DVD the cloud objects were displaced in position from their original place perfectly overlaying their counterparts on the background jpg. I had used "original" size for the png objects and "fit to slide" for the background jpg and cover png files.

The best software is the one which is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).

That is not the case of PTE V5 where you have to think about child objects, wedges, divide width by Pi or make other esoteric calculations, don't forget to keep length in a pair number, deactivate or activate material acceleration and don't forget to check or uncheck some choice boxes, count pixels, make endless trials on multiple configurations and so on ....

Using basic and very simple transitions don't discharge of making some of theses manipulations and even on up to date PCs, you are not sure your slideshow will behave as you created it ... apart asking the end user to change screen resolution, shut down all background running programs, deactivate antivirus, temporarily stop the firewall, etc, etc.... or, when nothing works, just denying the end user's complaints !

Patrick