davegee

Hi Peter, Once again, and with great respect, have you tried what I have suggested to JP? The attached screen shot shows the difference. The size and position figures show tha actual pixels relationship between the green and blue images. The Blue image is a 1600x1200 transparent PNG with a 640x480 Blue image at the centre. When I select any of the images the correct pixel relationship between it and its parent is shown. DaveG EDITED

Peter has asked me to add to this thread. He and I are getting different results when we "ADD" a new frame (Beta 4). The screen shot attached shows what I am getting. It represents a frame added to a Full-screen 16:9 Project on a 1920x1200 monitor. On a different sized monitor the SIZE figures should show the resolution of the monitor in use (when running at Native Resolution). DaveG

JP, Why not? We have to change with the times and adapt to new working procedures. DaveG

JP, With great respect, your problem is the BLUE image. If you substitute a 1280x960 PNG file with a 640x480 blue image in the centre it will appear as it should and all measurements in the "Size/Position.." will be correct. When making alterations to the BLUE image you then calculate according to the outer frame which is, of course, 1280x960. DaveG

JP, You only sent the project file - can you send Backup in Zip? I the meantime please look at part two of my reply to Xaver? DaveG

Xaver (part 2), If the same 1000x500 JPEG is inserted into a frame then weird things start to happen. In order to get the same results when using a frame I have to insert a 1500x1200 transparent PNG file with the 1000x500 JPEG in the centre to achieve the same result. The properties of the PARENT FRAME are now what I have to consider.The position figures in the "Size/Position..." box for the FRAME now show zero. To move my 1000x500 JPEG to the left extreme of the frame I should be able to type Minus 250 into the properties of the FRAME but I have to use the up and down arrows to get to where I want. (I think there is a problem here IGOR) The same applies when I want to move my 1000x500 image to the top of the frame (-350). DaveG

Xaver, I can't agree. Please consider this: I have a Full screen 5:4 Project on my 1920x1200 monitor in front of me. In O&A I insert a JPEG which is 1000x500 pixels. It opens up as Fit to Slide and fills the width of my screen. I click on Size in the "Size/Position.." screen and it resizes my JPEG to the correct relationship with the screen and tells me that the image size is 1000x500. It also tells me that the position of my image relative to the left of the screen is 250 Pixels and to the top of the screen 350 Pixels. I'll let you do the Math but I think you'll find that it's giving me the correct information. I change the 250 figure to zero and the image flies over to the left extreme. I change the 350 to zero and my image flies to the top extreme. I can set any pixel value I like and the image goes precisely where I require it. Can you reproduce that and is it not "absolute"? DaveG

Hi Peter, As I have previously stated I no longer make DVDs because of the quality issues but I respect the needs of others. I wasn't asking about practicalities - I was making statements, which I think as you progress you will find are correct. My concerns are for the future development of PTE which Igor has said will be better served without Original Mode and I'm sure that there must be a compromise solution which will work within the framework of what Igor has provided in 5.6. So, to sum up again, with the exception of reducing the size of the project for making a DVD, the reliance on Original Mode is not there. What we should be looking for is a solution to the TV Safe Zone problem. DaveG

Peter, When you add a frame it automatically "fits to slide" (in my case). Therefore if you add a frame to a 1280x1024 project it already is 1280x1024. When you add a 1280x960 "child" to the frame it automatically "fits to slide" (fits to width) and is in reality in original mode because of its relationship with the project size. Anything you do to it afterwards is relative to its parent. Keep the animation tab open and you can see what is happening to the "child". If you downloaded the "Masks and Frames" Backup in Zip before I disabled it you can see it in action there. DaveG

Hi Peter, I have read the PDF a couple of times and would like to briefly comment on what I understand so far. If we just take the first section - "The Cale Method". If we substitute a "FRAME" for the "CALE" then I see no difference in the methodology - correct? If we take your 1280x1024 project example and all of the images used in the project (main images, parents and children) are either 1280 wide or 1024 high then "Fit to Slide" and "Original Mode" are one and the same thing - correct? If we take your 1280x1024 project example and insert an image into the frame which is 640 pixels wide and set a zoom figure of 50% in animation then the 640 pixel image has an actual pixels relationship with the parent frame – correct? So, if we know the relationship between the parent frame and the inserted image we are able to correctly set the relationship via the Zoom setting in Animation (if necessary). All of this also fits in with the concept of constructing projects in Layers in Photoshop so no problems there. So far so good – I see nothing here which is totally reliant on “Original Mode”. Maybe the “Virtual Cale” or “Virtual Frame” will throw up some anomalies which have so far not surfaced? DaveG

Peter, It is probably to do with video memory. The right hand side is the one which has the large resolution image(!!). My video card has 512Mb memory. Lin, I knew someone would have a larger one!! But seriously, 1920x1200 is about the norm for dedicated amateur photographers these days - in my experience/circles. 1920x1080 is becoming the norm for projectors so to be able to see shows and single images in "actual pixels" and full-screen a 1920x1200 is about right. If I could afford/justify a 1920x1080 monitor I would go for that. I'd love to hear from anyone who has tried this on more than one computer/monitor setup at different native resolutions to prove that this is a "one size fits all" solution? I've tried it and it works, but I don't count! DaveG

Hi Igor, I'm sorry but my original runs far smoother than your updated file (even with the "wrong sized" file). Please check "mipmapping" before releasing Beta 5? DaveG

Aaaaarghh!!!! Apologies with regard to the oversized image!! I dragged two images from another 1920x1080 project but forgot that particular one was used for a deep zoom!! Two other points if I may: 1. I used 1920x1080 (!!) images in 1920x1200 project. The whole thing is far easier to do if the images are the same as screen resolution i.e. 1920x1080 images in 1920x1080 project. I saw no point in doing a project at a lower resolution - if it is going to be "one size fits all" it has to be able to cope with what I think(!) is the highest monitor resolution out there at this time. 2. The backup file might not be applicable to your computer unless you have a 1920x1200 monitor (running at native resolution) so I have disabled it. Thanks Igor.

Andreas, 128Mb is borderline with the size of these images (abnormal). Thanks, DaveG

It might be better to choose to create an ISO file instead of burn to DVD. If the ISO file can be created you know that it is not a problem with PTE or your show etc. If you can't then burn the ISO to a DVD it is nothing to do with PTE. DaveG

Andreas, How much video RAM? DaveG

We could be twins! DON'T LOOK! It was just designed to show another aspect of using Masks and Frames - I don't think anyone would want to use it this way but having four things going on at the same time is just the tip of the icegerg. Add to that the facility for making one show for all monitors and it shows that the skies the limit. DaveG

It just worked for me Eric. DaveG

Hi all, I have uploaded a short demo of some applications for PTE 5.6 Masks and Frames to Mediafire. All images used are "Actual Pixels" (Original Mode) with respect to a 1920x1200 monitor. The Demo will play on any resolution / aspect ratio monitor and preserve the relationships between the various elements. A reasonably good graphics card with 128Mb of RAM is advisable. It plays on my old laptop with 64Mb graphics RAM (1024x768 Native Res) but is very jumpy. Smooth as silk on my desktop with 512Mb of Graphics RAM. There's quite a lot going on! http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=411ad3b...d8b33b5aa27078d DaveG

Igor, Further information: I have created a 16:10 Full-screen project and changed the background colour to RED. When I add a 1920x1200 plain black image to the project in Fit to Slide mode I can still see a very thin red line around the image in O&A. DaveG

Card is nVidia GeForce 7600 GS Windows Media Centre Edition V.5.1 (SP2) DaveG

Hi Igor, 1. All transitions but more obvious with Fade In / Fade Out 2. Both Preview and EXE 3. OK DaveG

Hi Igor, I'm not sure if this is a bug? The attached JPEG shows the top left corner of a 1920x1080 show on a 1920x1200 monitor. On every transition the top line of the "previous" image seems to linger for a second or two over the "new" image. The blue line that you see is the sky from the "previous" slide and lasts just a second or two. It shows up more when a dark image replaces a light image. DaveG

Hi Peter, I REALLY appreciate what you are trying to do. However it all seems to centre around "Original Mode" which as I said above IS STILL THERE. I have to admit that, because of the obvious translation problems, I don't know what a CALE is, but I can make a show which will adapt to any size screen and look exactly the same in any resolution/aspect ratio using FRAMES. I have been trying to explain resolution/aspect ratio for a LONG time. I just don't understand why Original Mode is such a problem - IT IS STILL THERE. That's all I wanted to know. I have all the patience in the world but there must be others like me who would like an explanation (that we can understand) of what this is all about. DaveG

Thanks, but that doesn't answer my question? DaveG