davegee

I think I have answered my own question to Igor. If I use "% of slide to show main image" I can change the Main image (Parent) from 100% to 90% at any time during or after the creation of the project to create a "TV Safe Zone". If the main image is always used as the Parent to ALL subsequent additions all of the children will be reduced proportionately. I have tried to create projects with the percieved inaccuracies brought about by the loss of ORIGINAL MODE and failed. I don't see a problem with 5.6. Andre, All of my trials will work on ANY resolution monitor and what I have written above will ensure that nothing is cut off when making a DVD. DaveG

Henri, I too, am saddened by Peter's decision. I used Original Mode 100% in previous versions but I see nothing in 5.6 which will change the end result of what I use PTE for. What will change is the methodology I use to achieve it. I believe that original mode can still be achieve in 5.6 - it is just the HOW that has changed. I also believe that the way forward depends on the answer to just one question to Igor: Can he provide us with the means to GLOBALLY change the percentage value of a first level object? This would solve the TV Safe Zone problem. Adding an object which is equal in resolution to the compiler's screen resolution at the first level (above the background) and setting its opacity to zero allows it to be used as a parent for the whole slide. If Igor can provide the means to globally change the percentage value of this first level object (in Project Options for instance) then the whole project can be reduced by a fixed amount to allow for TV Safe Zone. Problem solved? DaveG

JP, To convince me / everyone, can you produce a short sequence showing where these inaccuracies happen? An EXE along with a backup in zip would be great. My screen sizes are 1920x1200 and 1280x1024 so it would have to be in one of those resolutions for me to be able to comment. Many thanks, DaveG

Elegantly put Xaver, If the top level is a blank image with zero opacity (something like JP's Cale) then then percieved problem with "inconsistencies" in the display of pixel sizes no longer exists. The only remaining problem to my way of thinking is the TV Safe Zone and how to easily achieve it. I am tempted to suggest that all those who burn DVDs build it in right from the start but that would probably not please everyone. DaveG

Agreed!! Title suggests that it was made with 1920x1200 images and on my 1920x1200 monitor some of them just BITE you!! DaveG

Bob, Is this the spec of your computer or the spec of the laptop which is giving the problem? DaveG

JP, I truly respect your work, one day I hope to produce work which is just HALF as good!! I repeat what I have said elsewhere - Igor's statement was VERY important and I am prepared to change my method of working if it means that he can produce a better product. DaveG

JP, FULLSCREEN is probably the best description, if you understand the concept that on a screen with an aspect ratio different to the original aspect ratio it will either FIT TO WIDTH or FIT TO HEIGHT. I would not want that changed. I am happy with it. In fact I am happy with 5.6 the way it is - all that is necessary is a USER's MANUAL that explains it correctly in the simplest of terminology. Igor's statement is a VERY important document and should be read VERY carefully. If it is accepted then I see a way forward for everyone and any obvious problems can be sorted as they arise in a orderly manner. As it is now the "Tail is trying to wag the dog" - do you have a similar saying? "c'est une petite minorite qui se fait obeir" (?). DaveG

Hi Gary, The point I was trying to make (I think!) was that TV Safe Zone is only necessary for regular PAL/NTSC DVD Authoring. For making an MPEG for viewing on your computer it is not necessary? DaveG

Peter, Still thinking about this. Meanwhile I wonder if the meaning of Fullscreen on Project Options is being misunderstood. To me it means that the EXE will play Fullscreen on ANY monitor - it is not referring to the resolution/aspect ratio of the monitor being used to construct the show. It is where the chain of percentages starts - 100%, 50% 25% etc of the VIEWER's Screen - not the compiler's screen. DaveG

Peter, Think of it this way (look at the Animations Screen): In the first slide the White object is 6.4% of the Frame's Native Resolution i.e. 6.4% of 10000 by something. In slide 2 the White object is is 50% of its parent images' resolution (1280x1024). The above figures refer to my screen - they might differ on yours. DaveG

Peter, Something to consider: When posting an example in this way your figures are never going to be the same as the viewer's figures because of screen resolution/aspect ratio differences. For instance in your first line you mention the figures: (0,0 and 1280,1024) - on my screen (1920x1200) these are 0,0 1500,1200) This makes it difficult to follow your argument /reasoning to say the least. I will try. DaveG

Thanks Igor and Xaver, If I add a frame to a 16:10 blank project on my 1920x1200 monitor its size in "Size/Position" is 1920x1200 but its native size in Properties is 10000x6250. No matter what the aspect ratio of the project is the Native Resolution (in Properties) is always going to be 10000xsomething (the height will depend on the aspect ratio). To change the size of the frame I can grab a corner square and drag inwards etc. or I can alter its percentage value in Animations. If I add a 1200 pixel high image to the frame its height in "Size/Position" will assume the height figures of its parent frame (in native resolution terms) i.e. 6250 Pixels High. To change the appearance of the image within the frame I can use the grab handles or the zoom percentage figure in Animations. 50% Zoom will now show that the height in "Size/Position" is half of the Native Resolution Pixels of the Parent Frame i.e. 3125 I will continue this later. Continued: If I now add a 1200 pixel high Image to the Image as a child (does that make it the Grandchild of the Frame?) the grandchild assumes the pixel dimensions of ITS parent i.e. the 1200 height image in Native Resolution terms. If the CHILD is zoomed to 50% (when the grandchild is added) the GRANDCHILD will appear at the same PHYSICAL size as the CHILD with its pixel size in “size/Position” showing as 1200 pixels high. To get the GRANDCHILD back to 1200 pixels high (fill the height of the screen) change the zoom percentage in Animations to 200%. Thanks both, DaveG

Goddi, Just trying to understand your reasoning: The MPEG files you created cannot be burned to a PAL/NTSC DVD - they are too big. You will need Blue Ray technology to make DVDs from these files - am I correct? Will TV Safe Zone still apply? - I suppose it will but I don't know of anyone doing this at the moment to give a definitive answer. I am still playing these MPEGs from my laptop to my TV via HDMI/DVI and TV Safe Zone does not apply to me. DaveG

I think that we need to more fully understand what the information in front of us is actually telling us before making suggestions. If you manually resize the frame created as I suggested, the figures change in the "Size/Position" but not in "Properties". Why? DaveG

Xaver, I understand. DaveG

Igor, Did you pick up my message that it is impossible to enter a minus figure in the position box in "size/Position.." - it has to be done with up/down arrows. Peter, Can you confirm? DaveG

Interesting point JP, In PS at "Actual Pixels" the relationship between the layers appears to be on an "absolute pixels" basis but when you apply a zoom factor the "percentage" relationship comes into play between layers. Perhaps they have two "systems"? One for "Actual Pixels" and another for all other zoom percentages? DaveG

Peter, Until you sort out the apparent anomaly regarding the size/position of a frame can I suggest that using a plain black image with opacity set to zero as a "virtual frame" (to use JPD's terminology) will produce the desired results. When inserting images as children of other images and using PNG files where necessary the "anomalies" do not occur. DaveG

Xaver, A while ago you said: A major difference in my eyes seems to be that 5.5 with original mode places objects pixel oriented, while 5.6 internally seems to be completely percentage oriented. The size/position window only seems to be a tool for avoiding calculations (from pixels to percentages). I had a look at a project file created with 5.6: It did not contain the pixel coordinates which I typed into that window, but only the corresponding percentage information. The images all have position mode "percent", I think that position mode "absolute" does no longer exist. It occured to me that absolute pixel relationships between objects would be only be possible on monitors of the same resolution/aspect ratio. In order to preserve relationships between objects across a variety of different resolution/aspect ratio monitors the distance between them MUST be expressed as a percentage. Two objects xxxx pixels apart on my 1920x1200 monitor would appear to be further apart when viewed on a 1400x1050 monitor if an absolute pixels relationship were maintained. Hence the need to change to a percentage based relationship. DaveG

Cor, After pressing the SIZE button you can bring things back to normal by changing the percentage figure in animations back to 100%. Regarding 3): All relationships are to the PARENT. DaveG

OK Peter, I copy that. Now, add a child to the first child and all subsequent children take on the correct size attributes. It appears to me that it is only the first child that behaves in this strange way? DaveG P.S. I think this behaviour only applies to children of FRAMES and not to children of images?

On a lighter note, here's a demo which is called SNOOKER. The TABLE is the VIRTUAL FRAME, the RED BALL is a child of the table and the WHITE BALL is the child of the RED BALL. The table is a 1920x1200 JPEG and the RED BALL and WHITE BALL are both 1920x1200 PNG files with the balls at their starting positions. At every keyframe the position of every element is determinable with absolute accuracy with respect to its parent. I have tried it on both my 1920x1200 monitor and my laptop's 1280x1024 monitor and the result is identical albeit smaller. Enjoy, DaveG http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=411ad3b...d8b33b5aa27078d

Dick, Please set Fullscreen, 5:4 and add a 1280x1024 image. In O&A right click on the image title on the right hand side and delete it to leave a plain black background. Add a frame and if yours behaves the same as mine you should see, in Size/Position, 1280x1024 for Size and two zeros for position. DaveG

Sorry Peter, We were both writing at the same time. It won't be counter intuitive to JP - he says that he uses layers to construct his shows. What could be easier than saving each layer at its full resolution either as a JPEG (if it has no transparency) or a PNG (if it has transparency)? DaveG