jt49

Don't you like to open the slide options from O&A?

The new button does a similar job as the "Toast", but not exactly the same one. If you highlight a slide, the cursor's position typically is behind the incoming transition. So clicking the new button does not show the transition, while the Toast does show it So, I myself like to have both buttons, depending on what I want to see, a start exactly at the cursor's position, or a slide including the incoming transition

Is it possible to avoid showing the vertical slices in the book's pages?

Referring to splines and the mathematics behind them cannot be regarded as helpful. What we need is a graphical description. We had it for the speed parameters in the old versions. I asked for it in the said thread from November 2016. And this is what Igor replied (November 28, 2016): We plan to add a graphic for better understanding how it works. So, let us hope that WnSoft will manage to offer a better interface for the speed settings.

It would be fine to see this feature in the Online Help

IMO this is a good suggestion

Presently we have a so-called natural blur for images, where the borders of the images become soft and partially transparent. This works well in many cases. Sometimes, in particular when working with images that precisely fill the screen, it would be fine to have a blur option that would work like Photoshop, with sharp borders, and without transparency. In cases where the image has a colored border (PTE Property in O&A), this border should remain as it is while blurring the image.

I would regard this as an implementation specific question. The present situation, where you cannot directly link two clips on the same track to the same slide in the timeline isn't perfect, as well. The reason: You can first draw a clip to some other track, link it, and draw it then to the place where you want to see it, with the known consequences (crossfade does not work, and an error indication in the project options) both of which which I do mind. So you force us to apply an odd workaround. BTW: I do not regard crossfades within the same track as a good solution, as you do not have a good control. I prefer crossfades using two tracks and the envelope. In the typical situation where you link several (normally very short) clips to the same slide you will not have any crossfades.

I am glad to read this! Sometimes I make heavy use of this feature (see below), and (so far) I have not noticed any problem.

As you see in my posted image above, I already make use of the feature of linking several images on the same track to the same slide, although PTE indicates errors in the Project Options. I would be glad if PTE wouldn't show these errors any longer, and if it were possible to do this kind of linking also in the Timeline.

I do not agree. You say that clips (not explicitly linked) that follow a linked clip were linked, as well. This is not really true. The effect that we see is only a side effect, as the position of this kind of clips is described via an offset relative to the preceding one. If you move such a clip (not explicitly linked) to some other track it looses its implicit link, and it may become linked (only implicitly) to some other slide. This is perhaps not what we want to see. Only a clip that has been explicitly linked to a particular slide remains linked to this slide, even if you move it across the tracks. Furthermore: Think of a clip that is explicitly linked to some slide. Now move it to some other track that already has some other clip linked to the same slide. Now you will see two clips on the same track, and they will both have an explicit link to the same slide. Things will work as you will expect it, and the world will seem to be OK. But there will be an indication of an error, but you will only see it in the Project Options. Question: Does this really make sense? It is an error that isn't really one! My suggestion: Make it legal, linking 2 or more clips that are on the same track to the same slide The attached picture shows a typical situation where I prefer to link several clips on the same track to the same slide:

I would have liked to see a statement by WnSoft

I know about all your arguments. But here we are talking about video editing and nothing else. Think of a new customer. He will not know that much on animation in 3D. But he might see that some AV tools offer "video editing", and this might be an argument. The competition offers video editing at frame level, and it might be good for PTE it it would offer something of that kind, as well.

If we look at the competition like m.objects or AquaSoft Stages we see that they (to some extend) are ahead of PTE. They offer at least a few tools for video editing, and it may also be regarded as an advantage that they work with multiple image and video tracks (instead of a single track of containers (slides)). I think that all programs for AV or slide shows cannot compare to video editors like Edius or Premiere Pro. Nevertheles it would be fine if PTE would improve its video editing capabilities, as far as possible.

This is what XMedia Recode offers (and a few more )

This is not a question of nannying, but of consistency. We don't need configuration management for our projects, but a minimum of support for consistency would be fine. Do you think that the developers of MS Office, LibreOffice, Foxit-Software, Photoshop, and others are all idiots who like it to nanny their users?

I don't think that "Remember Settings" would be a good solution. A button for saving parameters (including fonts for text objects) would be a better solution.

Hi Denis, The frame rates that you mention are those which are presently used by PTE. Nobody wants them to be cancelled. My request is just to add options for a few additional ones

A warning would be better than having nothing. Nevertheless the pitfall would remain closing and storing the two instances in the wrong order. IMO there isn't any need to open exactly the same project file twice. A user who wants to to work with two instances this should be forced to open the second instance by saving the original project a second time using a different name.

You did not understand my argument. I'm not interested in Davinci Resolve. I only ask for additional frame rate parameters for PTE, a feature request that could be easily fulfilled, as the underlying encoder offers the appropriate functionality

Thanks. I have thought that you were thinking of re-encoding, but I wanted to be sure about it. So let us look at an example. Think of a project including a few videos, all at 30.00 fps. The output should be a video again. Any program that wants to be regarded as a serious tool for video editing would now offer me the same frame rate as the input videos. Rendering the new video at 29.97 fps, and re-encoding it afterwords to 30.00 fps can not be accepted as a professional workflow. It is not a new observation: There a people who make their suggestions for new versions. But in cases of suggestions from others (which may not match their interest) they discredit them, pretending to care for the average user or the KISS principle. If we would restrict PTE to what the average user needs, we had to cancel many of PTE's existing features. In this case, I had to look for something else. But I'm sure that this will not happen.

Can you explain this in more detail ?

This is what I said here, it might cause problems for some users. But I think that this problem could be solved by offering appropriate presets, and showing all kinds of frame rates only in the custom mode. I know several people who tend to produce their AVs now using video editors. On the other hand, some AV competitors advertise with video editing. Some time ago I thought about a discussion on "video editing with PTE" in my user group. But I changed my mind because of missing features.

With some applications like IrfanView and XnView you can open several instances, and they indeed allow to have the same object open in different instances. For image viewers this may not be a serious problem; at least not for me as I only use them for viewing, not for modifying images. With more sophisticated programs, like office programs, the situation is different for me. With MS Word (Office 365) and LibreOffice I can start several instances, but in both cases, when I try to open a document that has already been opened in some other instance (window) the office program does not open the document a second time but shows the window in which this particular document has been opened before.The said office applications have all the advantages that you are talking about, but they care for the consistency of documents. I think that Roel's request really makes sense. My own workflow for PTE (storing new project versions again and again) normally prevents me to run into Roel's problem. Nevertheless, I like his suggestion.

I just made a test. Neither Photoshop CC nor LibreOffice allow to open the same image or document a second time.