fh1805

Ray, Thanks for the suggestion but, for the purpose of the understanding that I am trying to get, it is vital that the operations apply to the child image. The other image is there simply to show how it should look if it was allowed to display without the use of a Frame and the "Size/position in pixels..." window. I've done some more tests with v56b4 and the root cause of my difficulty is that I cannot get the Frame to "lock on" to the size 1280x1024 which I set for it using the two edit boxes in the "Size/position..." window. It keeps changing to a size of 10000x8000. In the project file attached to this post, immediately before I saved the project file, the Frame was displaying its size as 1280x1024 in the edit boxes in the "Size/position..." window and the image file, A49, was displaying as 1280x960. And yet the image file still appeared as just a thumbnail image. The only way I can get the image to appear larger is to increase the zoom value on the Animation tab. But this then increases its "size" in the edit boxes in "Size/position in pixels...". There is no way that even an advanced user can make any sense of this feature. Nothing about iit is, in any sense of the word, "intuitive". And yet, when I watch a video clip that Igor has sent me explaining how to use this feature it behaves for him exactly as I expected it should and exactly as I want it to. It has to be me missing something that is fundamental to this whole area. What I want to be able to do is: - set a Frame of size 1280x1024 (the same dimensions as the resolution of my monitor) - add a child image whose size is 1280x960 - set the position of this child where I want it to be relative to its parent (the Frame) and I want to do all that simply and easily and using the "by pixels" method so that I am using the tool that Igor has offered as an alternative to Original size. If I still had "Original" I could have done all this hours ago. I take that last statement back. Having just tried to do the same thing using Original mode in v5.52 I find that it, too, behaves in this odd way. The root cause of the problem clearly has to do with my understanding of how to get PTE to do what I want. This all simply reinforces my view that use of PTE in this feature is NOT intuitive. regards, Peter v56b4_Size_in_pixels_2_Oct29_2008_11_03_48.zip

Having completed the English summary of the "Cale" method and JPD's proposal in respect of "Original" mode (see here), I am now trying to understand Igor's alternative to "Original" mode: "Size/position in pixels of parent". I have tried to construct some images using this facility and I cannot get it to work as I thought it should. I must be doing something wrong because, as part of the work I have just done on JPD's proposal, Igor sent me a demo video of him using this feature. When he uses it, it behaves as I expected it would. But it doesn't behave that way for me. The test sequence (available on MediaFire here: http://www.mediafire.com/?otmmotzwjoz) uses four images: - D46 is 1200x1600 pixels - D49 is 1600x1200 pixels - D1500 is 3008x2000 pixels - D1501 is 2000x3008 pixels Each slide contains a Frame that is sized at 1280x1024 pixels and two copies of one of the image files. One copy of the image file is an independent object. The other copy is a child of the frame. For each child image I have used the "Size/position in pixels of parent" window to set the position to coordinates 0,0 (= align to the top-left corner). I have also used "Size/position in pixels of parent" window to set the size of the child to be its original size as given above. The result is that I get the thumbnail sized image. This is very clearly not the same effect as "Original" mode. I now know why the French diaporamists are so dismayed. Nor can this feature be described as "intuitive" to use. If it was truly intuitive I would have worked out by now how to use it to get the result that I want. How does this feature work? Any and all advice will be welcome. I need to understand this in order to do the comparison of this method and JPD's proposal. regards, Peter

Well, here it is! After nearly 72 hours of dialogue with JPD, and a couple of e-mails to Gerard Desroches, I have finally been able to produce a summary in English of both the "Cale" method currently used by the French diaporamists and also of JPD's proposed new technique. I have undertaken this work because I felt that there was a lack of understanding of both methods by many of the English-speaking forum members. It is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one does not understand the subject being discussed. The document is only one and a half sides of A4 and is almost entirely free of any mathematics. I have tried to summarise using as little technical language as possible. I hope it helps to make the situation clearer. JPD_Proposal.pdf I have, this afternoon, started a dialogue with Igor from which I hope to get an equally clear understanding of his new "Size in pixels" option. Once I have that understanding I will be able to make a sound comparison of the two methods (Igor's and JPD's). I will, of course, keep the forum advised of progress on these discussions. I'm afraid my work on the FAQs is now "on hold" as I feel that this is a more important topic. regards, Peter

In terms of smoothness of movement, I cannot tell the difference between the two versions. In terms of sharpness during the panning I feel that Igor's version might just have a slight edge over the original from DaveG but it is difficult to be sure. However, I have noticed something slighty unusual. If I use DaveG's zipped backup file and use PTE v5.6 beta 4 to open his project file and then Preview the project, I see noticebale stutter in the right hand panel of the "two up" on the first time through. If I allow the project to loop then on the second time around there is less stutter and on the third time around the loop there is no visible stutter at all. In the "four-up" section there is visible stutter in the lower right panel first time round, less stutter there the second time round and no stutter the third time round. If I then create an exe file and play that, I see the same stutter that slowly gets better with each iteration around the loop - and it is always most obvious in the right panel of the "two up" section. If I run Igor's exe file round the loop three times I see exactly the same stuuter that gets better each time around until it has vanished by the third time around. I can only conclude that it must be an effect of memory management and/or variable initialisation. First time through there is most to do (memory to load and variables to initialise), second time round there is less to do (memory still has some of the old content and gets reused?) and third time round it's all done (memory load is now optimal) and only needs playing back! Weird or what? Testing done on a 1280x1024 monitor driven by an nVidia GeForce 8400GS with 256MB of dedicated graphics memory on a system with Intel Core2 Duo 2.33GHz processors and 2GB of RAM running under Vista Home Premium SP1. regards, Peter

Previewed smooth as silk as my nVidia GeForce 8400GS. regards, Peter

Jim, Are you down to your last handful of free GB on your hard-disk? regards Peter

Eric, What is the Text Template wizard? I've never heard of this in the context of PTE. regards, Peter

Bobo, If you are applying the same customization to many slides you can select them all using either Shift+Click (for a contiguous group) or Ctrl+Click (for a broken collection). regards, Peter

Ray, I'm working with JPD on an explanation of the "Cale" method in English. I hope to have something to post in a day or so. As I have pleaded elsewhere on this forum in the last 48 hours - patience, please!!! regards, Peter

Gary, I don't think it's a bug. Try unticking the "In pixels" box, setting the two values from 10 to 20 and then click on the C button. This will align the orange grid intersection with the centre point of the image if the image is at pan = 0. regards, Peter P.S. I didn't know any of that until you made your post and I did the research. Thanks for increasing my knowledge of PTE.

Gary, Igor uses the same name for the file everytime: apr-deluxe_beta.zip. So you will always get the latest beta no matter which of Igor's posts you use for the link to it. I can understand why he does this. He doesn't want a new user downloading an old beta and then finding faults that have already been reported and fixed! I always rename the zip file as it gets saved: to, for example, pte560b4.zip. And I will keep all these and all the installed betas until Igor ships the final release code and that has ahd time to prove it is stable. You'll just have to start keeping them all again from beta5 onwards. regards, Peter

Gary, you can have all the beta versions installed at the same time. They each go into their own folder. The only thing you need to watch for is whether you let each install change the file associations (two tick boxes on one of the install screens). I always ask for a desktop icon and always turn off the file associations at that screen. Once the install completes I rename the icon to, for example, "PTE v5.6b4" for beta 4. I've currently got all four betas installed but I only test in the latest version unless I suspect things have gone backwards in terms of a bug fix. Then I will use the older versions to check that it was working in an earlier version but isn't in the latest version. Savvy? regards, Peter

It is more than just the number of clicks or the presence/absence of "Original" as a mode. A significant number of users of PTE have developed a way of working that enables them, quickly and easily, to change a sequence so that it appears correctly on a 1024x768 projector, or on a 1280x1024 PC screen or any other size of screen and also within the TV safe Zone when produced as a DVD-Video. I am in a very active dialogue with JPD to understand both the current method and the implications of his proposal. JPD explained his proposal using precise mathematics to illustrate its behaviour. I am now learning about it so that I can try and explain it on the forum in simple terms without all the mathematics. Emotions have already been aroused elsewhere on the forum in discussions about this subject. As I have pleaded elsewhere on the forum: please give JPD and I more time for me to get a thorough and accurate understanding of both the old method and the new proposal. Further debate based on mis-understandings and mis-conceptions will serve only further to inflame those already heightened emotions. Patience, PLEASE!!! regards, Peter

Members of this forum (whatever your nationality and mother-tongue), I speak to you as a Moderator of this forum and as someone whom, I hope, has earned your respect. The direction in which the recent posts are taking this thread is totally counter-productive. Personal arguments should not be part of this forum. The latest version of PTE (v5.6) has caused severe problems for some users of PTE because Igor has withdrawn a feature (Original size) that they use extensively in building their sequences. This feature, and the way in which they used it, enabled them to build a sequence at a single resolution that could quickly and easily be resized to any other resolution. For example: - they could build a sequence at 1024x768 and then quickly and easily resize it to fill a 1280x1024 screen - they could build a sequence at 1920x1280 and then quickly and easily resize it down to a 1024x768 projector JPD in his two lengthy posts has explained a new method that could be used in PTE that would achieve the same result in a different manner and, moreover, would do the resize totally automatically. Using JPD's technique the exe file would be created at whatever size the user wanted it at but would automatically adjust to the resolution of the PC monitor on which it was played or to the resolution of the projector through which it was beamed. I am in the middle of a dialogue (off forum) with JPD trying to ensure that my understanding of his proposal is absolutely correct. I will also be trying to understand how we, as users, would give the algorithm the five parameters it needs to do its work. I ask you all: please show a little more tolerance of one another's views. And a final BIG please... please give JPD and I some more time for me to get a full understanding of his proposal and how it might be implemented. If it is as I currently understand it, then it offers an opportunity to both simplify and enhance PTE for all users. regards, Peter

Gary, In my limited experience of using the various "video" options of Create in v5.6 beta, that progress window is incomplete. After getting a full set of "Done"s you should have speed values against all of them and a big green tick icon in the space above them. It looks to me as though it has not completed successfully. regards, Peter

Gary and others, JPD has asked me to study his proposal and comment on it. I am in the middle of an e-mail exchange with Jean-Pierre to clarify my understanding and will post a summary statement here once that dialogue is complete. Patience everyone, please! regards, Peter

Jean-Pierre, Do not worry, you have not offended me. I have read your posts and think that I understand the concept of your proposal. I will spend some more time reading them again and try to understand the details as well. I will reply to this in the other thread. regards, Peter

Jean-Pierre, You have expressed the same thought that I made in a post earlier this year. See here. We are of like mind on this point. regards, Peter

Robyn, Does it behave the same when you run the exe file off the hard disk drive or off a USB memory stick? regards, Peter

Daniel, I, too, use Audacity but I can see that being able to position the pieces of music against the slides in PTE could be very helpful. For example it would show up those places where the transition from one piece of music to the next was going to need extra care during the mixing of the final soundtrack. But I would still use Audacity to do the final mix of the soundtrack. regards, Peter

I would respectfully remind all users of this forum that use of humour in a post can be counter-productive. Not everyone has the same sense of humour. Nor do they necessarily share the same attitude to the subjects that are often implied within the attempt at humour. I would especially remind all the forum members for whom some form of English is their native tongue that not all forum members are blessed with a skill in our glorious language. Some of our overseas friends rely on web-translation packages to assist them in converting posts from English to their own native tongue. These packages are rarely adept at translating humour. The problems can be made worse if the basis of the humour is sarcasm or sardonic wit. These rely on subtle nuances in our language which often do not translate well, even in the hands of a skilled translator - and in extreme cases might come out as a direct insult! Humour has it's place in this forum as it does in like itself. But do please think carefully before using humour to get your point across. Mis-placed or mis-handled humour could well have directly the opposite effect to that which you intended. regards, Peter

As I have read the many posts in this thread I slowly formed a vision in my mind of a radically new layout for the PTE user interface. I have tried to describe it in the attachment. When reading the attachment please think along these lines: In my vision, the headings Images, Music, Transitions and Objects would be tabs at the top of the screen (just like the tabs in Project Options or on the O&A window). They would be laid out in that order left to right. The headings Preview, Create and Save would be buttons at the bottom of the screen. These would also be laid out in that order left to right. The underlying code would be absolutely identical for all three "skill levels". The software would simply "grey out" buttons, icons and command options according to the selected "skill level". A new user could operate the software at "Beginner" level until they felt comfortable with that. By changing their "skill level" to "Intermediate" they would see exactly the same screen contents but now some more buttons, icons and command options would be "blacked in" and active. When they felt they were ready for the final step up they would simply change their skill level to "Advanced" and there would be no "greyed out" items. I don't claim that this is a fully thought through design; but I felt that the debate had arrived at the point where this was, perhaps, a suitable next step in the discussion. New_PTE_User_Interface.pdf regards, Peter

Steve, Now I understand where you're coming from! And I agree with you. If Igor cannot easily allow us to add nominated folders of our own into the view then he could, at least, provide all the top level folders that Vista gives as standard to a user. regards, Peter

Eric, Xaver isn't suggesting making PTE a sound editting program. What he is suggesting is that there should be some capability to have more than one "timeline track" of music. And on each of the tracks to be able to place sound files exactly where we want. And having placed them to be able to apply fade up/down in a selective manner (as we can with the Envelope tool in Audacity). This is a long way removed from PTE becoming a sound editor program. It is simply providing a new feature for the advanced user (or professional user as some call us). The proposed feature will make the final assembly of a more complex sequence a little bit easier to achieve. If this feature was added it would not make PTE a sound editor but it would give it sound mixing capability. And as A-V workers we need that capability to come from somewhere. Currently we use the likes of Audacity or Adobe Audition. And many of us would probably continue to use those to assemble our complex sound tracks. regards, Peter

Umberto, Take a look at View...Timeline Options. The first three items in the drop-down menu are different auto-scrolling settings. Try each one and see which you prefer. regards, Peter