Cover Screen, Slide and Aspect Ratio

[Barry Beckham]

[This discussion has been extracted from "Comments..." topic. Igor]

PicturesToExe Beta 3

As I understand things, we can now apply much higher resolution images into our slide shows so that they work on all monitors. There is less need to do any resizing of images inside an image editor. Then, In project options we can apply unsharp mask, which is great. The trouble I have found is that if I apply images in this way, some of the images are not the right format to fill the entire screen and will have a black bar somewhere around the edge.

So, now I have to go into each image using O&A to select the cover slide mode (which should be renamed to cover screen by the way. We are not covering the slide, we use the slide to cover the screen) If your intention is to remove the need to resize images and give us unsharp mask options in the project options window, surely we need to be able to select Cover Slide (Cover Screen) at the same location and for the entire slide show. There seems little point in saving one job if it has to be repaced by another.

In the drop down Aspect Ration Box, can't there be an ALL setting that applies the Cover Slide option for the entire show.

Format and resolution is the biggest obstacle for newer users of slide show software, it needs to be simple for the new user to throw in some images and have them fit their 1280*1024 screen and also their friends 1920*1080 screen too.

The inclusion of the F6 key toggle from the slide list to the time line and back again is great. Thank you

[Igor]

Barry,

Sorry for my late response on your suggestions ()

Do you suggest rename "Cover slide" mode of an object to "Cover screen"? What about the second mode - "Fit to slide". Should it also be renamed to "Fit to screen". Mainly I agree with you. It's more easy for understandign. But strictly speaking this option works inside a slide, not entire screen. What other members think on this question?

Please tell me more about suggested global option (Cover Screen). Do you mean "Cover screen" option which will be set by default for all newely inserted images? Or a global option for a slide to enlarge the slide to cover screen

(and no black strips arround the slide).

In other words:

1. Image covers slide.

2. Or slide covers screen.

Currently there is a similar command line option -cover. Create a .bat file and type name of executable file with this parameter. For example: myshow.exe -cover Then run this bat file. Are you speaking about this mode?

[davegee]

I can only speak for myself here.

If you are going to call the "container" for the images and objects a "SLIDE" the the option should remain as "Fit to Slide" or "Cover Slide".

At present we have the SLIDE LIST and the fitting or covering refers to the SLIDE.

When talking of "Fitting to Screen" I think of the portion of the SCREEN that the PTE show takes up on a Monitor or Projector or TV.

DG

[CorVdK]

If you are going to call the "container" for the images and objects a "SLIDE" then the option should remain as "Fit to Slide" or "Cover Slide".

At present we have the SLIDE LIST and the fitting or covering refers to the SLIDE.

I agree with davegee.

What one see in Options & Animations is the background of the container, in PTE called the "slide". The background that you see is black (or no color), but one can give it any color via Screen/Background or Customize Slide/Use own background preference.

The slide (the container) can have one or more objects, picture(s), videoclip(s), photograph(s), map(s), text, or whatever you call the objects that can be used.

If you want to see the difference between the background of the container and the screen, go to Project Options/Screen.

If your display is 4:3 put the aspect ratio of a slide to 16:9, or vice versa.

Put Background/Solid Color to ex. red.

Put in Additional Options/Color outside slide area to ex. green. Confirm with OK.

Start Preview and you can see clearly which is what: Red is the background of the Slide (container) and the green area is the Screen.

To Igor,

I personally feel that we now have to continue with the name, slide.

One can see the container as a slide mount, which can contain both images and video.

The Dutch translation of PTE for version 7.0 is now adapted that way, "slide" is translated to "dia".

Any possible confusion with the words "image" ("beeld", "afbeelding") and "picture" ("foto") are avoided that way.

Cor

[Barry Beckham]

Igor

I have always thought the options of cover slide and cover screen did not have the best of names, but not for my own use. I am thinking of those who are trying to learn PTE from scratch. We make slide shows, we have a slide list and it just seems to make sense for those options to be FIT TO SCREEN and COVER SCREEN. If space allowed I would actually use Fit Image to Screen and Image to Cover Screen. People would better understand what those options do. The biggest problem we have with any software is the label does not easily tell the user what it does.

I thought your intention was to create a working environment within PTE 7 that would allow users to drop high resolution images into their slide show, directly from their camera. To remove the need to resize images for those who did not want the trouble of doing that. We now have the global unsharp mask and the sharper and smoother option to achieve that. For those who understand aspect ratio and resolution this is not an issue. For the newer user, it may be because they will not appreciate that they have to go into the O&A for every slide they apply to their show and select Cover slide.

If the above statement does reflect what you are aiming for with PTE, then there is a need for a global option to cover screen for every image in that show, even images that have not been added yet. Your option 2 is what I have in mind, the images covers the screen resolution that has been set in project options. I think the option needs to be global, but one that can easily be turned on and off.

In fact going one stage further, why can't PicturesToExe when launched automatically pick up the resolution of the monitor being used and set that as a default.

Currently there is a similar command line option -cover. Create a .bat file and type name of executable file with this parameter. For example: myshow.exe -cover Then run this bat file. Are you speaking about this mode?

I am not sure what your talking about here, I have never got into command line options or exel spreadsheets and newer users won't either, the basic making of a slide show needs to be simple. You can see that from Cor's reply above. Let me ask you and the members what they would make of Cor's way if they had just opened the software for the first time. Sorry Cor, your expecting much to much from the average user.

[paulziets]

I agree with Barry, keep it as simple and intuitive as possible or users will be put off and go for an easier option.

Regards,

Paul Zietsman

[Tonton Bruno]

Do you suggest rename "Cover slide" mode of an object to "Cover screen"? What about the second mode - "Fit to slide". Should it also be renamed to "Fit to screen". Mainly I agree with you. It's more easy for understandign. But strictly speaking this option works inside a slide, not entire screen. What other members think on this question?

In the french version, the translation is "cover format".

This fonction is linked to the parent object, and if this parent object is generaly the screen, this is not always the case, and it is very important to understand that many values in different controls refer to the parent object, and not to the screen. Even size and zoom, are expressed according to the size of the parent object, wich is not always the screen.

As shown in the attached image, it will be non-sense to write "cover screen" when what we get is "cover parent object".

This is why "cover format" is certainly the most convenient label, and it is very important to understand the parent-child structure of PTE, and to keep in mind that different values attached to any object are always expressed according to its parent, which is not always the screen.

I attach a second image (infortunely in french) to show the structure of PTE objects.

[Ronniebootwest]

Since I became involved in creating my own web site, I had to learn the terminology surrounding the use of 'Containers'. I found the whole process quite difficult. When making a slide show, the user will want things to be kept very simple and easy to understand. Therefore, I agree with the Barry (who has put forward his arguemnt very clearly) and it gets my vote.

Ron.

[davegee]

In order to make this suggestion workable it follows that the present "SLIDE" would also need to be renamed.

The obvious new name would be "SCREEN".

For instance the "SLIDE LIST" would have to be remamed the "SCREEN LIST"(?).

"INSERT BLANK SLIDE" would become "INSERT BLANK SCREEN"(?).

All of the "SET FOR EXISTING SLIDES" would become "SET FOR EXISTING SCREENS"

On the upside the word SLIDE could be dropped from the SCREEN OPTIONS and "SCREEN and SLIDE" would become "SCREEN".

I suppose that an alternative to "FIT TO SLIDE" or "FIT TO SCREEN" would be "FIT TO VIEW" but then all references to SLIDE would be to "VIEW".

None of these suggestions make sense.

The "container" for images and objects has always been called the SLIDE and there are XXXX number of people out there who are seemingly happy to go along with this.

The area of your monitor on which your PTE show is displayed has always been refered to as the "SCREEN" and there are XXXX number of people out there who are seemingly happy to go along with this.

I foresee a situation in the future, if this suggestion is adopted, where someone is going to be complaining that his/her images are not filling his/her 1920x1200 monitor in a 1920x1080 show when he/she told them to "COVER SCREEN".

Please, Igor, don't change this on the opinions of a few of the XXXX number of seemingly happy users of PTE who DON'T complain. Get a bigger cross section of that XXXX number before proceeding?

I have always been able to grasp the concept of the SLIDE being the container for the Images and Objects and the SCREEN being the area of my monitor being used to display my PTE Show. It's not rocket science.

DG

[xahu34]

... it will be non-sense to write "cover screen" when what we get is "cover parent object".

This is why "cover format" is certainly the most convenient label ...

I myself like to keep things simple, but simplicity is not a value in its own. So, I have to say that Bruno's remark coincides with my position in this subject. "Cover Format" and "Fit (in)to Format" would be a choice that I could vote for!

In the German translation (which I do not like in all positions) we have the terms "Einpassen" and "Überdecken", just "Fitting" and "Covering", without saying into what the new object is to fit, or what is to be covered (which should be clear from the context). I would regard this as an alternative. Being a bit vague seems to be better than doing it the wrong way!

Another alternative: Leave things as they are (Cover slide, ...) as proposed by Dave (davegee) and Cor (CorVdK), although I must admit that I do not like it. It does not suit well in the parent/child situation.

Regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

... The Dutch translation of PTE for version 7.0 is now adapted that way, "slide" is translated to "dia".

Any possible confusion with the words "image" ("beeld", "afbeelding") and "picture" ("foto") are avoided that way ...

Congratulations, Cor. Now the Belgians and the Dutch are ahead of us In the German version we still seem to have the same term for "Slide" and "Image". I pointed out this this drawback several times (posts, PMs, e-mails), but the German translator seems to have a lack of understanding

Best regards,

Xaver

[Bert]

Having just gone thru 100 images in 2x3 format, to make them cover the screen in a 16x9 format one by one. I like cover the screen to be the default, Or that it can be done in one click for all slides (images).

I can live with any name but see Barry's logic, but Tonton Bruno's point in #7 is also a good one.

Best regards,

Bert

[Rickl]

Never gave it much thought before. But after reading CorVdK's post, and trying out his suggestion, it seems to me we have three 'layers' here to consider?

Screen: The boundaries of which are dependent on the physical screen of the monitor/projector/ipod/ipad etc

Slide: The boundaries of which are dependent on the aspect ratio chosen for the presentation. Will normally expand to fit the left and right edges of the screen leaving empty space above and below if the aspect ratio of the slide does not match the aspect ratio of the screen.

Image: The boundaries of which are dependent on what the creator is trying to present with images video etc. It is bounded by the boundaries of the slide.

My 19" monitor has an aspect ratio of 5:4 (1280x1024). Until now, I never saw the empty space above and below my slide shows caused by aspect ratio variations. Setting an aspect ration of 4:3, adding an image set to 16:9 with 'fit to slide' I can clearly see the background color of the slide, and beyond, the background color of the additional space above and below the 4:3 aspect slide format I chose.

If we continue to call the creative viewable portion of the presentation a 'slide', then it would seem to me that 'Cover Slide' and 'Fit to Slide' are a better description than 'Cover screen' and 'Fit to screen'?

Dick

[fh1805]

I have no particular preference in this matter as I never change from the defaults. However, if two new and unambiguous phrases really are required wouldn't "Fit to parent" and "Cover parent" be the most appropriate? After all, the slide is the parent of all independent objects, and the screen is the parent of the slide.

Peter

[xahu34]

... wouldn't "Fit to parent" and "Cover parent" be the most appropriate? After all, the slide is the parent of all independent objects ...

In principle, you are right, and this proposal instantaneously came into my mind when I noticed this discussion. On the other hand, I have the impression that only a minority of the PTE users have really grasped the parent/child concept. I fear that for the other users "Cover parent" would not be an appropriate term

Regards,

Xaver

[Igor]

Barry,

I understand your point of view. The current conception is more complex of understanding, especially for beginners, but it gives a lot of creative applications.

Simple slideshow products where you need not set aspect ratio of a slide allows put only one picture.

If you put at least two pictures together (or text caption with picture) you need to set fixed aspect ratio. Slide is a container with fixed aspect ratio for pictures and other objects to keep their relative positions.

Earlier in version 4.xx we had not aspect ratio that caused changes in position of objects when you run a slideshow on different displays (4:3 or 16:9).

Any software where you can put several objects on one screen require fixed aspect ratio.

Theoretically we could support two modes - simple with dynamic aspect ratio according screen and advanced mode with fixed aspect ratio. But it's one more option. And questions from users. And difficulties with code to write and support both modes.

What we can do now?

1. We can add a global preset in the Project options:

"Show mode for new pictures" ("Fit to slide" / "Cover slide").

And a button to apply choosed mode for all objects in a show.

This will save a lot of time if you need to change this mode for all slides in your project.

2. Or an alternate global option of virtual editing (and local option for each picture object):

"Crop picture to aspect ratio" (4:3, 5:4, 16:9, etc). This option also allows reach same result. This option could work like current "Canvas size" editing and give similar result. Both options can work together.

3. We can add a new button to Navigation bar to switch between two modes "Fit to screen" and "Cover screen". This option applies to entire slide and allows to remove black strips around a slide. This option can be implemented in following version(s).

4. Regarding naming ("Cover slide" or "Cover parent"). We can use dynamic name depending on parent of an object. If object lays on a slide we use "Cover slide". If object placed on a parent object we use "Cover parent".

What you think?

[xahu34]

...

4. Regarding naming ("Cover slide" or "Cover parent"). We can use dynamic name depending on parent of an object. If object lays on a slide we use "Cover slide". If object placed on a parent object we use "Cover parent".

...

This proposal sounds quite nice, at least for the English user interface. It might cause trouble for other languages. In the German UI slides do not exist. For slides and images, the same word is currently used (the German word for image). See also my post #10.

Regards,

Xaver

[CorVdK]

Whatever new names we choose, I believe that the logic in the program must be preserved.

When we are going to nominate key functions such as "Cover slide" different than the actual process really is, then new users will be totally lost.

"Cover slide" is completely different than what is meant by "Cover screen".

I have no objection to change names but they have to remain logical.

The context of "parent and child" is rather logical to me.

keep it as simple and intuitive as possible or users will be put off and go for an easier option.

This is a statement with a rather thin argument.

Every software has a learning curve. There are manuals in different languages, as a user you have to read it.

If someone is interested enough there is this forum and there are very well known forums in other languages also.

I have started from scratch one day and I learn everyday.

Sorry Cor, your expecting much to much from the average user

Something to think about:

What right do someone have to see an "average user" or "a beginner" as an illiterate person who does not understand a thing.

Sometimes I have the impression that some people are completely lost in their own world.

And by the way, I see myself as "an average user".

Cor

[CorVdK]

What we can do now?

To Igor,

If you could improve things more, make the working of those options more time saving, more dynamic,...

You have my vote for these.

What you think?

You and your team have worked very hard.

We have a lot of improvements to try out, new features to play with, to test out.

To avoid confusion.

Please keep the names in the program as it is today.

A lot of people are happy with it, or more or less happy with it.

That's my opinion.

Cor

[Guest Yachtsman1]

I've been using PTE for almost 4 years & reading the previous posts, only now do I understand the term parent/child. I don't know of any other software using this term which to my 71 year old mind is totally irrelevant to its function, and causes confusion to people like me on the periphery of the programme.

Yachtsman1.

[aplman]

We don't need new names! SLIDE is a fundamental concept in PTE, and is the right name for the "container".

SCREEN is totally different. There is only one screen (or maybe two). There may be multiple WINDOWS within a screen. A slideshow does not have many screens, it has many slides.

PARENT/CHILD is a fundamentsl concept in computing and software generally. It's what gives PTE so much of it's flexibility, compared to layers etc. It's worth learning!

Igor, please let us have both ways of changing between "Fit to Slide" and "Cover Slide" - default for new slides, and ability to apply the change to selected slides.

Thanks Igor for guiding us in the best direction.

Ken (APLman)

[BootZilla]

I see no reason to change the existing terminology. It was probably confusing to most of us at the beginning but it soon made sense. It will be the same for new users.

All this talk about "fit to screen", "fit to slide" etc, are we still going to have the option in the "screen" tab in the project options to simply select the slide show aspect ratio ie; 16x9, 16x10, 5x4, custom etc and also be able to enter the size (in pixels). will the option for "fixed size of slide in pixels" still be there?

What about "keyframe grouping"; this has been brought up a few times over the past 2 years. Ether very few members understand what is meant by "keyframe grouping" and how simple it would make the repositioning of the fading in and out of an object during the animation time of the main slide - to be able to click on the first keyframe and then shift click on the last keyframe and move them all together would be great. I know this has nothing to do with VIDEO which is what a lot of members are excited about but it would sure help the members who still believe that slideshows are created using still images. That's why I got into PTE.

Greg Gordon

[davegee]

What we can do now?

1. We can add a global preset in the Project options:

"Show mode for new pictures" ("Fit to slide" / "Cover slide").

And a button to apply choosed mode for all objects in a show.

This will save a lot of time if you need to change this mode for all slides in your project.

2. Or an alternate global option of virtual editing (and local option for each picture object):

"Crop picture to aspect ratio" (4:3, 5:4, 16:9, etc). This option also allows reach same result. This option could work like current "Canvas size" editing and give similar result. Both options can work together.

3. We can add a new button to Navigation bar to switch between two modes "Fit to screen" and "Cover screen". This option applies to entire slide and allows to remove black strips around a slide. This option can be implemented in following version(s).

4. Regarding naming ("Cover slide" or "Cover parent"). We can use dynamic name depending on parent of an object. If object lays on a slide we use "Cover slide". If object placed on a parent object we use "Cover parent".

What you think?

Igor,

Options 1 and 4 make sense.

Option 3 would appeal to some - I personally would not use it. I will have already made that choice in Options/Screen and the implication is that part of the show will be lost (sides or bottom/top).

DG

[xahu34]

...

SLIDE is a fundamental concept in PTE, and is the right name for the "container".

SCREEN is totally different. There is only one screen (or maybe two). There may be multiple WINDOWS within a screen. A slideshow does not have many screens, it has many slides.

...

I agree, this is a correct view of the current situation. We can continue with this description by noticing that all slides (i.e. containers for images and other objects) map to a particular area on the screen in which the show runs, a kind of window. This area is either defined by the aspect ratio or by a fixed pixel dimension. Looking at the Screen tab in the Project Options, this area seems to be called "slide", as well. So this term seems to have multiple meanings. In my opinion, it is the said screen area that will be covered, not the object container itself (both named "slide"). In the parent/child situation the expression "Cover slide" is to be regarded as imprecise, as mentioned above. Thus, following the French or the German translation would be a way that I would like to prefer

Regards,

Xaver

[Barry Beckham]

Cor

What right do someone have to see an "average user" or "a beginner" as an illiterate person who does not understand a thing.

Sometimes I have the impression that some people are completely lost in their own world.

And by the way, I see myself as "an average user".

Please understand, I am not calling anyone illiterate and if you got that from what I said in my post, god knows how. I do have some skills in Photoshop and PicturesToExe training and I do know where people get hung up, but if I can cause you to throw your dummy out of your pram for making a suggestion, then its time I bowed out of these dabates and left the important stuff to you experts.