Jean-Cyprien

Nice idea, beautiful box, really good animation, Bravo !

Yes Igor, In the case the virtual size of slides is smaller than the screen, with fixed size of slide ticked, you are quite right ! 1 pixel picture = 1 pixel sceen And I can see NO difference, with your example or "my" radiotelescop"

Igor, Perhaps I don't understand exactly what you mean. I think it's quite impossible to have 1 pixel of the picture on exactly 1 pixel of the screen. The sceen software, Windows… resize the picture. What I mean is : if you have a picture of 1201x1800 pixels, put in PTE with a virtual size of slide of exactly 1201x1800, in that case, PTE has no resizing to do (is it correct ?). But even in that case, the tool "Low quality of resizing" is working perfectly and makes a (sometimes great) difference between the results. See my example : on my screen there is a lot a differences. Resizing.zip

The name of "Low quality of resizing" is certainly not a good one : we can use it with and without "resizing" the picture, and the words "bad quality" and even "quality" are not really suitable. It is a wonderful/powerful/useful (!!) tool when you have to place different pictures with a sharp accuracy. You can easily distinguish each pixel of the pictures. The work is easier, and the result is greatly improved by a very precise adjustment. My friend Etienne H. also usually uses it . It can afford to make stars twinkle, or on the contrary, to transform some pixels into snowflakes. I agree with the explanation of Lin. I think it's not a sharpness increase, but rather a presentation without loss of sharpness. "Loss" could mean that PTE usually damage the pictures. My proposal is therefore "Without change of sharpness" (or neatness ? ) without other detail (or perhaps, as Photoshop : Resample without change of sharpness). P.S. For 3D objects (like the belfry of my bell Choupinette), this tool is indispensable to avoid lines (artefact) in the corner – according to the type of file (png, jpg)

Ah, Ah, Ah, Peter ! I’m very sorry for your virtual headache ! Ah, ah ! “ I'm not sure I'm any wiser.” But yes, you are, as everybody else could be ! OK, the pattern # 1 and # 2 are very difficult to cure, they are caricature designs, but I think necessary to understand how the tool is working, and try to test its efficiency. They help to show the difference of what I call shimmering and moiré, two different effects (or so it seems) of the same phenomena. The third pattern is a real one, even if it is a anaglyph. You have the template in hand, so it is easy for you to replace the picture (cheverny.jpg) by one of yours to test by yourself. Finally, you have the same feeling as me : the positive values are efficient, their adjustment is perceptible, the result is not so hard as with the box “Blur”. (Perhaps a value between +0.3 and +0.6 is the best, for THIS three patterns, but to be examined for other pattern ? ). Quite a lot of good things ! The differences with the negative values are more difficult to appreciate. For them, it needs a real picture where the “ancient box” “Anti-shimmering” leads to a too strong effect. But unfortunately I have not such a picture in hand. Thank you, Peter to help us. regards, Jean-Cyprien

Hi, Here are the results of a few tests I made, to test the effectivness of the new value. What " I " see is perhaps completly different of what " YOU " see, so my conclusions can't be a certainty. Thank you. Jean-Cyprien Here is the link ( the file name is Moire_GB.zip = .exe file and the template) http://www.sendspace.com/file/wlp414

It works ! But after having turn on the mipmapping option, it’s not necessary to save the project and reopen it : it takes more time than the following process : Stay in the O&A window, copy the object, paste it in Excel (for example), add the new line with a value between –1 and +1 , copy the new file, return in the O&A window, and paste it. You can make several return very quickly and easily, and see the result with different values quite immediately. I’ll test it later. Thank again ! Jean-Cyprien

Incredible ! How fast is your answer Igor !! I'll try tomorrow. Thank you very much !

Hi Igor, Viewing an AV made with pictures of 1920x1200 pixels, I’ve observed on my screen (1600x1200 pixels) an unpleasant moiree effect – and I’m not the only one who has observed such a bad effect. This problem seems to be more accurate with some videoprojector and large screens. Too bad if it is a big show ! (And it is generally difficult for the author to guess the effect on an other screen than its own). It seems that in the past, the option called "Mipmapping (anti-shimmering)" was “too strong”, with too blurred images in consequence. And thus, this option is usually avoided. But I understand it’ll be possible in a near future to adjust the degree of "mipmapping". Could you explain how this new option will work ? Thank a lot in advance. Jean-Cyprien

A wonderful presentation canteau ! A big and fine work. With a lot of new and good ideas. (even if I’m not always satisfied when the spheres rotate). I have not managed to see a ghost (unless the big one ) : you’re a wizard ! Bravo ! Jean-Cyprien

Hi Lin, Nice example ! Thank you for this good demonstration of what PTE is now able to do. Best regards, Jean-Cyprien

Happy birthday to you ! and my best wishes to you : nice pictures, nice AV, etc.

Hi Umberto, See here the template of an example edit. The zoom values of the pictures themselves are not to be taken into account into the formula, but of course, if one picture is not at 100% (258% for example !) the formula result is to be multiplied by this zoom value (here 258%) I hope I'm clear, but be kind enough to excuse my difficulties with the English language (Even in French, it's not always easy to explain !!!!). Thanks PanZ_et_zoom.pt.zip

Hi, Umberto, Xaver formula is correct IF your pictures are at the 0 level – or under parents with all the zoom’ values at 100% If the pictures are children of a parent with a zoom value, you have to take this value into account. Example : if the parent ‘zoom is 16% , you have to take Pan Z x 16% in the formula (if there is more than one parent, you have to multiply the zoom values of all the parents) To verify the accuracy of the zoom value, you put a picture at Pan Z = 0 and zoom = 100% above this picture, you put the same picture but with the negative colors, and with 50% opacity. Put it at the Pan Z value and the corresponding calculated Zoom value. You must obtain a perfect grey picture Jean-Cyprien

Thank you, DavyC, for this new AV I like the trains, so I like very much what you've done. The pictures are beautiful, and I imagine you've had a hard work to get such perfect pictures from old photos, and with this nice sepia color. Nice stations, nice horses, nice trains, nice bridges,... wonderful. Thanks also to have enable the keyboard control ! Jean-Cyprien

HI, With the 6.5 version I’ve discovered in the “3D parameters” window a new tool called “Hide child objects” It’s not difficult to understand how it works, but I’ve some difficulties to imagine when it could be useful for me, unless if there are a lot of children on the same plan that the parent. (for me, they generally are not on the same plan !). Never mind, I’ve imagine interesting things : if I use a parent (could be a frame) turning in one direction, and a child turning in the other direction (same angles during the same time), I get the possibility to have a lot of children appearing or disappearing without mask, and without keypoints (or just a couple). This is very interesting, because if a lot of objects have to pass before and behind an other lot of objects, it’s necessary to use a mask (see "One Slide, Many Images" http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11911 ). Other example : a flashing light is very easy to do. See my Christmas tree lights. see here : http://www.sendspace.com/file/swhsia Thank you - Jean-Cyprien

GregTomkins'question was : "But to do so I had to create separate keyframes for the two objects that fade in. I think I really only need one keyframe associated to two objects. I thought the keyframe associated with the second-level object would affect both of them, but it doesn't. It seems like if you had 20 images to fade in, you would need 20 keyframes. I'm sure there is a smoother way. Any advice appreciated." Answering that it was possible easily with masks, and giving an example - a template - I think I was NOT out of topic. Sorry, xahu34, if not. But it's not very important. Is-it ? We are not still at school. Is-it because the example was too amazing ? Why not ?

Peter, After reflexion, and test, it's NOT necessary to put the cube'set at the bottom of the objects on a mask container. Its opacity could be always at 100%. Sorry - Jean-Cyprien

Hello Peter, As I know you like cubes like me, I've just prepared - very rapidly (I hope there is no mistake)- for you (but not only !), a small example using two masks with 140 objects on each (the same cube'set)under and above an other cube'set. You'll find the template there : http://www.sendspace.com/file/2st68g best regards Jean-Cyprien

Yes,it is not possible to change the opacity of several objects together in a simple way. A pity it's not possible, for instance with the opacity of the parent'frame as Peter writes. BUT, there's still the possiblity to put all the objets on a mask container, and play with the opacity of the mask. If there isn't too much (or too big) objects, it's work perfectly !

Sorry Igor, it’s always difficult to explain easily what we think ! “Do you mean that a particular slideshow has more smoothness (fluidity) being created in version 5.6 than in 6.0-6.5 Beta 3 ?” I was not meaning exactly that. There was two remarks : First, being on the O&A window, there was no fluidity at all with the 6.0 6.01 6.02 6.03 6.04 versions and heavy views - even created with the 6.04. But now with the 6.5 it’s absolutely OK. Secondly, even with the new versions, PTE 6… stay a long time (up to 2 or 3 seconds), at the beginning of the same heavy view, without animation (but with the sound going on without stop). It was not the case with the 5.6 version. About the objects tree. I’m happy with the new way it works now. A little time lost to fold and unfold the big tree, but a lot of time won after that. What I was saying then is : when there is a lot of objects, PTE is very slow to change the data, even to add one letter… With the 5.6 version, it finished often with a “Out of memory” ! It’s not the case now. A good point. Unfortunately I have nothing to suggest ! When working with heavy views, I have to try and to separate the big file in smaller files to work with them, and not the big one. I’m sending e-mail with templates Thank you Igor

Unfortunately I haven’t now the opportunity to test the sound improvements, nor the GIF animation. But I want to stress that, since the 6.5 version, - the fluidity/smoothness on the O&A window is now quite perfect, even with heavy views with a lot of objects and/or keypoints. This is a big improvement. (the fluidity there was seriously lost with the previous 6.0.. versions). Unfortunately, those heavy views take more time to be taken into account with the computer. It was much better with the 5.6 version. - the reworked tree of objects is also a great improvement. It takes a little bit more time to fold and unfold the (big) tree, but the form of the tree is finally preserved when things are changed, added, removed … (and even when the file is saved) : this allow to win a lot of time ! Precious time, because changing data is very very slow in this case (never satisfied !!).

Yes, downloading is now possible, and PTE 6.53 works now perfectly with my project. Thank you Igor

OK, fine, thank you Igor !

Thank you, Igor. I can wait ! The most important thing is that you're aware of the problem, and looking for a solution. Thanks for fixing the bugs.