davegee

Come on Lin!! You know that's NOT what I was talking about? Try creating a PTE show which is 1920.5 x 1080.5 Pixels? DG You might have been kidding but there are people out there who will believe you

It was for fun! The fun (for me) is in getting things precise [begin Whinge] There's nothing worse (for me) than a demo of something which is pushed into the public domain in a hurry (just to be first) containing errors or images which are the wrong resolution and zoomed beyond their capabilities or contain compression artifacts etc etc. [End Whinge] Not you, Sheila! I have seen it here once or twice. BTW There is no such thing as a "fraction of a Pixel" but there is, in geometry, a "fraction of a degree". Keeping saying "I CAN do it!" Best wishes, DG P.S. While I'm whinging, could I put in a request for a SPEELING CHEQUOR?

Sheila, The link in the Pyramid Challenge thread gave the info for finding the "centre" of a Pyramid. A quarter way up from Base to Apex. Thats where knowing the Trig was important. Hence the other link. In my challenge the precise angle was reverse engineered so that the sides of the triangle came out as near to a whole number as possible. By rounding up you introduced a one pixel error - not a lot but enough to be noticeable. The other problem is doing precise triangles in Photoshop - I found the PEN tool to be very precise. DG

See post number three. DG

Excellent suggestion Mike. The only question is why you didn't come in sooner? Thanks for posting. DG

Just tried - works very well!! Using a font like Arial helps as does using BOLD. Import the PDF into PS - duplicate BG Layer. Use Magic Wand (non-contiguous) to eliminate the WHITE. Turn off the BG layer. Apply shadow. Save for the WEB as PNG. DG

Try converting your Word doc to Acrobat (PDF). Photoshop opens PDF and allows shadow etc. But all formatting would have to look right in Word / PDF. DG

Could you make a simple one slide (low file size) Template available? DG

By add-ons you mean TEXT? Resolution and AR of Project? Is this for a regular PAL DVD? Are you UN-ticking Fixed Size of Slide? DG

Ken, The "new" Nav Bar (video style) allows you to PAUSE a show using a mouse click. Optional controls are Previous and Next Slide Buttons. You can also alter the Auto Hide Time, Fade In and Fade Out and Scale of the Nav Bar. The two other styles (AIR and SKY) offer more controls but don't look as neat as the VIDEO Nav Bar. If the Nav Bar is turned OFF then the SPACE Bar will pause the show IF Permit Control Of Show is enabled. It's up to the Author? I have my little pet hates as well - if any author writes a little script to change my screen resolution he/she is blacklisted forthwith! DG

Hi Ken, Manual? It's possible that Neal is asking why there are not as many choices in Video Style as there are in the other two styles? DG

In V7 beta 10: >Project Options> Main> Tick Show Nav Bar >Customize Nav Bar >Choose style and add the controls you require - set Auto Hide Time etc. DG

If you cannot make the ISO (UNTICK BURN DVD and TICK CREATE ISO) then something in your project COULD be causing the problem. Try removing MUSIC and make ISO. If that fails split project in half and try to make an ISO from each half. If one half makes ISO and the other does not you have isolated a section of the project to investigate further. DG

Like it or not Barry, I'm afraid that we all have the facility you speak of. It is just triggered more easily in some than in others. ;) DG P.S. This post contains NO mallicious content and has been screened by the necessary body (PHIL).

JFF, Just in case clarification is needed: Your original key (purchased years ago) is for LIFE. To unlock the additional features which you might be trying to access (VIDEOBUILDER) you need an additional license. Without the additional license you should still be able to create an EXE file as well as an AVI with which to make a DVD. Is it possible that you have purchased a new NORMAL ($49) license and not the required VIDEOBUILDER ($75) license? Hope this helps? DG

What we all agree on is that MP3's are more efficient and take up less space than WAV files. CALM DOWN EVERYONE!!!!!! DG

JFF, Go to www.wnsoft.com and raise a support ticket? Please (!!!!!) come back and let us know the result? DG

The Laptop is Vista - updated a couple of months ago. It doesn't occur on my Desktop either. XP Media Centre Edition about five years old - NEVER been updated. DG

Can you make an ISO (instead of trying to burn DVD)??? Tell us STEP BY STEP what is happening - when does it stop? DG

It is more usual (and economical) to use MP3 files in PTE. Have you tried that option? DG

John, I'm not seeing the same as you and cannot replicate it - 1280x800 Laptop Monitor. DG

Hi Peter, If you explore the link I gave you and enter, for instance, my figure (52.9573) for the angle and then Sheila's 53 together with a base dimension of 400 you'll see that the result is a difference of 1 pixel. My suggested figure gives 663.999xxxxxx (664) Sheila's angle gives 664.65xxxxx (665??) My suggestion is that the ONE pixel difference is noticeable and COULD be magnified by other factors, especially when the different monitor resolutions are taken into account. Try those figures in Excel and see if they are the same (?) - they should be. If a Maths Exam paper gave a figure of 52.9573 to work with then that's the figure I would use - it's there for a purpose. It's not that big a deal but my background tells me that I should be as accurate as possible in these things. I have to trust Igor's and PTE's maths capabilities until someone proves otherwise. DG P.S. Regarding your 127.04xxxx figure, what would happen if you started from a completely folded (flattened or collapsed) object and asked it to open all sides out to 52.9573? Would that be more accurate?That's the way I approached this excercise.

Jean-Cyprien, You and I are saying the exact same thing in slightly different ways. However, I would advocate the use of "custom built" Frames (independent of screen resolution) to simplify the process. For instance, if a frame of 400x400 is used in the construction of a 400x400 cube then the PAN Z values are always 100%. You could also use an 800x800 Frame to construct the 400x400 Cube in which case the PAN Z values would be 50%. One further point: PAN Z is not necessary in the construction of a cube. It is only necessary for moving the cube backwards or forwards relative to the viewer. Pan Z was not used and was not needed in the construction of the Photo Frame elsewhere in this thread. Going back to the FRAME itself, I am reminded that JPD sometimes used a CALE which was of a fixed height but ONLY ONE PIXEL WIDE. He was way ahead of his time!! DG

Peter, I can't argue about PTE rounding off the figure. However, I must admit to doing a bit of reverse engineering in designing the challenge. I tried to get a figure for the angle which produced the nearest "whole pixel" dimensions for the sides. The figure which then came up was 92.9573. Whilst the actual slope of the Great Pyramid is 92.xx it slightly less than my 92.9573. If you look at Sheila's Template you'll see that her rounding up or down has produced a much more inaccurate result than yours and mine did. Somehow, her figure came to 666 as opposed to our 664. Notwithstanding the number of decimal places issue, I still maintain that being as accurate as possible is to be desired when trying to impart a principle on others who might be trying to learn from our efforts. If I were using Excel I would be looking for a large number of decimal places in the calculations phases but rounding off the final result. Does that not make sense? DG

DEFINITION OF PAN Z I will attempt to define Pan Z. But first I must explain my terminology. An object in O&A has a "NATURAL HEIGHT" and an "APPARENT HEIGHT". If an object is created in PS being 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels high and added to PTE O&A its "NATURAL HEIGHT" is 600 pixels. If the same object is turned through 90 degrees its "APPARENT HEIGHT" is 800 pixels but its "NATURAL HEIGHT" is still 600 pixels. The definition: PAN Z applied to an object is a function of the "NATURAL HEIGHT" of its parent frame. e.g. if +/- 100% PAN Z is applied to an object which has a parent frame which is 800 wide by 600 high the object will move by +/- 300 pixels. Open to comments. DG