EXE file sizes

[fergy]

As I understand it, Exe file sizes essentially are dependent on the underlying jpg and mp3 file sizes in the presentation, hence the benefit of resizing jpgs to the actual screen size/resolution. Fellow camera club members use other programs for presentations in which they do not need to resize the images eg ProShow Producer/Gold. Their created Exe files are of a similar size to my Exe files produced by PTE but only if I use resized images. This adds an additional step to the process, and can be time consuming. It is seen by them as a definite negative factor in choosing whether to use PTE.

Given that the Exe file will only ever display the image at the chosen resolution, why is PTE exe file so large when if full size files are used ? I think that this is because the PTE exe file stores the original image within it's coding. Why ?

As I said the resizing can be timeconsuming, and at times has to be done image by image, particularly when pans and zooms are involved.

Is this something which is an issue for users, and could be addressed in future ? It is something that from my experience is detering possible converts

[Ken Cox]

If you have the computing power, why bother resizing - pte has the power and smarts to resize for you -- unless you are shooting raw, make the show with jpegs saved as they come from camera -- try it

ken

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I think the advantage of PTE over PSG is picture quality. Most of our pictures are post processed before adding to a show, providing you have your editing system set up for the size you want, it's a simple final step to size the to a reasonable size. Also remember, it's the sound that bulks out the show more than the pictures.

yachtsman1

[Barry Beckham]

Fergy

PSG does resize the images automatically when you make your final exe file and I can see why some think resizing images is a waste of time. PTE does not resize images like PSG, but it can handle far larger files than PSG and it is far better quality. Consider this. You pay good money for your camera equipment and you take time and trouble capturing your images. You probably do some editing of them as well. Why then hand over the last part to your software to do it automatically for you. There are down sides to this that can effect image quality.

PSG does not choose which part of the image you want to show, it does not add that touch of extra sharpness necessary when we downsize images.

Here is another question. How many of those who think it is a negative factor to resize your images create really great slide shows?

I rest my case, but it horses for courses. If you want to throw a few images to a bit of music and call that AV, then PSG is for you. Want something better? Something to stand out from the crowd. Use PTE.

[fergy]

Thanks for the comments

I understand the point re resizing using external software in terms of quality - but still not sure why PTE stores fullsize image, rather image which will be generated as output.

I think also that while we may all be PTE users, we should not totally denigrate other software and its users. I have seen many excellent and sophisticated shows produced in PSG and Producer - mind you Producer is substantially more expensive. To beginners, in our camera club anyway, things such as Keyframes and layers and how pans/zooms/fades etc work seem more intuitive in Producer.

Having used PTE for several years, I find that PTE can produce similar effects and more, but you do need to have a better idea of what you are wanting to produce and be able to visualise it as you build. Things are improving with each version in this respect eg simple things like creating a blank slide, the ability to mix soundtracks, 3d effects etc. In fact, when I see the list of improvements with each version, there are some that I don't even understand.

I also like the ability to converse in these forums, and get advice and input regarding problems. I'm just going to post one such query in a minute.

Again thanks for the input guys

[Barry Beckham]

I understand the point re resizing using external software in terms of quality - but still not sure why PTE stores fullsize image, rather image which will be generated as output.

It doesn't and I am not sure why you think it does, it stores and plays the image you create at the size you created it. We were making the point that if you want to put images into PTE straight from your camera they will probably work fine, but that will depend on the cameras output and how much animation you use.

I think also that while we may all be PTE users, we should not totally denigrate other software and its users. I have seen many excellent and sophisticated shows produced in PSG and Producer - mind you Producer is substantially more expensive. To beginners, in our camera club anyway, things such as Keyframes and layers and how pans/zooms/fades etc work seem more intuitive in Producer.

Yes you can denigrate other software as long as you have a good enough knowledge of it and the competitor and your making those comments from practiced use. There is no point in having an intuitive software that doesn't work is there. I have used PTE and PSG extensively and PSG doesn't handle animation good enough yet and many PSG users are not getting the image quality right too. I was asked to demonstrate for PSG at the NEC a few years back, but had to decline because the animation is jerky and then that draws power from the software and affects the fades either side of the animated image. I wish they would address it and I could make some tutorials using PSG, but not while any demos I make are nnot smooth enough. I tried it again recently and the effects where the same.

[cjdnzl]

Thanks for the comments

I understand the point re resizing using external software in terms of quality - but still not sure why PTE stores fullsize image, rather image which will be generated as output.

I think also that while we may all be PTE users, we should not totally denigrate other software and its users. I have seen many excellent and sophisticated shows produced in PSG and Producer - mind you Producer is substantially more expensive. To beginners, in our camera club anyway, things such as Keyframes and layers and how pans/zooms/fades etc work seem more intuitive in Producer.

Having used PTE for several years, I find that PTE can produce similar effects and more, but you do need to have a better idea of what you are wanting to produce and be able to visualise it as you build. Things are improving with each version in this respect eg simple things like creating a blank slide, the ability to mix soundtracks, 3d effects etc. In fact, when I see the list of improvements with each version, there are some that I don't even understand.

I also like the ability to converse in these forums, and get advice and input regarding problems. I'm just going to post one such query in a minute.

Again thanks for the input guys

A couple of not-so-obvious points about file and image sizes. First, Proshow Gold does automatically resize images, as Barry says, and the reason is that PSG is oriented to making DVDs for showing on a TV, so resizes the image for that medium. This can result in the images showing on your computer/projector at less than optimal resolution. It will make executable files, but the definition is as per the TV quality.

PTE is optimised for best results for computer/projector display, much better definition than a TV can give - though 1080p is getting closer - so it does not resize. Additionally, if you want to zoom into images you will need a bigger image, e.g. on a 1024 x 768 projector, you can size your images to those dimensions, but if you want to use a 2x zoom, then the image needs to be 2048 x 1536 pixels, so that at 2x zoom the displayed image is 1024 x 768, so no loss of quality. The same applies, of course to other aspect ratios and image sizes. A point to watch is that over-large image sizes makes the computer work harder to render at screen size, so can stress the hardware if it only marginally handles the workload. PTE shows have a frame rate of 60 frames/second, twice the DVD frame rate, so that has a bearing on computer performance as well.

Colin