Modify the '% of Slide to Show Main Images'

[goddi]

Greetings,

My suggestion is to modify the how the scale works for the '% of the Slide to Show Main Images' works. It is found in the Projects Options/More menu.

Currently, when you click on the down arrow to reveal the scale, you can only move the arrow from 100% to some lesser value. However, when I create my slide shows I usually want to increase all of my images at once by 118% to bring the left and right edges to fill the 16:9 aspect ratio. I know that I can manually enter the 118 value directly into the block but it took me several years before someone told me that this was possible (as opposed to doing it to each image, one by one). So by changing the scale to allow movement to above 100%, I think it would be an improvement to make this capability to be more obvious.

Gary

[Barry Beckham]

Gary

I notice your comment has been posted all day, but as yet no-one has replied. I wonder if they are wondering why and are afraid to ask At a risk of poking my head above the parapet, why would you want to do this? I don't understand and I suspect others don't either.

If you do as you have suggested there will be one of two outcomes.

1. You will reduce the quality of your images by making them larger than the slide show they were created for.

2. If they were already created larger, by enlarging them as you describe you effectively crop quite a bit from the top and bottom, which you have no control over.

[davegee]

It's a way of getting around an Image Size (AR) / Project Size (AR) mismatch where an image is converted from "Fit To Slide" to "Cover Slide".

Whilst it might work it is not one that I would recommend either.

DG

[goddi]

Gary

I notice your comment has been posted all day, but as yet no-one has replied. I wonder if they are wondering why and are afraid to ask At a risk of poking my head above the parapet, why would you want to do this? I don't understand and I suspect others don't either.

If you do as you have suggested there will be one of two outcomes.

1. You will reduce the quality of your images by making them larger than the slide show they were created for.

2. If they were already created larger, by enlarging them as you describe you effectively crop quite a bit from the top and bottom, which you have no control over.

======================

Greetings Barry and Davegee,

Glad to see some heads popping up. But I am not sure why you don't like my method or would not recommend it.

Here is my thinking:

If you choose the aspect ratio of 16:9 and bring in an image, you will have black bars on the left and right. I want to fill my wide-screen TV with the images with no black bars. So I have a couple choices to make: 1) 'Common/Mode / Cover slide' or 2) 'Project Options / More / % of the slide to show main images.'

If I use choice #1, I have to do it manually to each image individually. Takes too long.

If I use choice #2, I can do it to all of the images at once (including the portrait images).

Either way, I can (and do) go back and choose which upper or lower portions of each image I want to crop out, or make any final adjustments. For most of my images, it is a good way of getting rid of portions of the image that don't want. It usually is a good thing, too much sky or too much ground. Also, I try to remember to not crop in too much when taking the picture so I have some unneeded areas to crop out (at the top and bottom).

So whether you use choice #1 or #2, you still have to make the 3:2 original image larger to fit the 16:9 aspect ratio. And I have never noticed any reduction in quality. Please let me know what your method is of filling the 16:9 aspect ratio without using either of the above choices.

Thanks...

Gary

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Cropping the original image to suit the aspect ratio of the medium you are using to display the show.

Yachtsman1.

[goddi]

Cropping the original image to suit the aspect ratio of the medium you are using to display the show.

Yachtsman1.

=========================

Yachtsman,

Sure, of course you can crop each image, one by one, in Photoshop or whatever you use. However, to me, I'd rather not. Cropping the image in Photoshop, or whatever, is a permanent change to the image. If you use my method, you always can tweak the 'crop' as you are making the slide show. AND, my method of 'cropping' using % of the slide to show main images is soooooo much faster (and adjustable).

Gary

[davegee]

Hi Gary,

I'm just an old stick in the mud who likes to prepare images in my Software of choice rather than in PTE.

Regardless of whether I am going to zoom into an image or not I usually make it the same aspect ratio as the Project. If I intend to zoom the image will be the exact size to suit the amount of zoom with no excess unwanted baggage. i.e. 200% zoom = 3840x2160 or sometimes 3240x2160.

If I am not intending to zoom then it will be the exact same size as the Project - again no excess baggage.

If I change my mind it is a simple matter to go back to the RAW and crop again.

I also like to prepare un-zoomed images with a frame in my Software of choice rather than add the frame in PTE. You could not not do that with what you propose.

I'm not against what you propose - I just would not use that method if it becomes available.

DG

[goddi]

Hi Gary,

I'm just an old stick in the mud who likes to prepare images in my Software of choice rather than in PTE.

Regardless of whether I am going to zoom into an image or not I usually make it the same aspect ratio as the Project. If I intend to zoom the image will be the exact size to suit the amount of zoom with no excess unwanted baggage. i.e. 200% zoom = 3840x2160 or sometimes 3240x2160.

If I am not intending to zoom then it will be the exact same size as the Project - again no excess baggage.

If I change my mind it is a simple matter to go back to the RAW and crop again.

I also like to prepare un-zoomed images with a frame in my Software of choice rather than add the frame in PTE. You could not not do that with what you propose.

I'm not against what you propose - I just would not use that method if it becomes available.

DG

==================

Davegee,

Ok, I see your method. But I like my method because it allows me to make adjustments to the 'crop' in O&A while making the slide show. Many times, I can see big differences in the 'feel' of the final image when I move the 'crop' up or down, even just a little bit, while in O&A. It would be a real pain and take so much extra time to do the actual crop in image software. And if I didn't like it, having to redo it all over again is not appealing. There does not seem to any real difference in the final result, except that I can get to the final result much faster (?).

I'd do your method only for only those images that I actually will be printing.

Gary

[Barry Beckham]

Gary

Well whose to say what method is best, if any, its the end result that counts and too many AV enthusiasts don't give any thought to how one image appears over another, so at least you are considering that aspect. Its just that the tool you mention is one that for a long time I have wondered what on earth its good for.

I prefer to prepare my images in Photoshop and I use layers a lot to fine tune transitions. I don't find it a chore to crop images to the desired size.

[goddi]

Gary

Well whose to say what method is best, if any, its the end result that counts and too many AV enthusiasts don't give any thought to how one image appears over another, so at least you are considering that aspect. Its just that the tool you mention is one that for a long time I have wondered what on earth its good for.

I prefer to prepare my images in Photoshop and I use layers a lot to fine tune transitions. I don't find it a chore to crop images to the desired size.

==========================

Barry,

I am only saying what works well for me, of course. Maybe others are not aware of this easy way of making their images fit the 16:9 aspect ratio. It took me a few years to find the % of the slide to show main images tool before I figured out it would save me a lot of time. I had been adjusting the aspect ratio (or crop) of each image, one by one, in O&A. I do use Photoshop for Levels and Sharpening. But I don't want to do a final 'crop' until I get the image into PTE. I just think that if you can input an amount greater than 100% in the % of the slide to show main images block, then why not allow for a slider that actually shows you that an amount greater than 100% can be entered? In the end, I don't see an issue with the final quality on an image whether you use my method or doing it in Photoshop. Do you?

Gary

[davegee]

As long as your 3:2 image is 1920 (or greater) wide then there should be no quality issues.<br><br>However, you are paying a (small) penalty in using oversized images and adding to the overall file size of the EXE. (NBD).<br><br><br>DG

[goddi]

As long as your 3:2 image is 1920 (or greater) wide then there should be no quality issues.

DG

================

DG,

Yes, I resize my images to 1920 on the long side, to reduce the overall size of the PTE exe file.

Gary

[jkb]

I agree with Gary, that this would be a useful feature.

I hadn't realised that I could type in an amount larger than 100%.

I always build up my images in layers in Photoshop & align them that way before resizing to 1024 x 768 & saving each layer with a new name.

But for quickness when building a sequence I simply insert the original jpgs to get a feel for the flow. (I always shoot in Raw plus a small jpg)

As the camera takes in 3:2 format & the final show is 4:3 format, there is a black bar top & bottom. So I have been manually going through each O&A & changing the zoom to 112%. To be able to do it quickly for all images in Project Options will save a lot of time.

Once I have an idea of the order of the images I then resize & align each one in Photoshop & then simply replace the image in PTE. The final show could then be set back to 100%

An addition to this feature would be the ability to select a block of images & set the size for them in one go. That way you could build up the images in blocks & quickly resize to fit.

Jill

[davegee]

Would it not be more useful to badger Igor for the facility to set either "Fit To Screen" or "Cover Screen" as Default in Project Options?

It seems that this way you are badgering him to make a workaround easier to accomplish.

JMTPW.

DG

[goddi]

Would it not be more useful to badger Igor for the facility to set either "Fit To Screen" or "Cover Screen" as Default in Project Options?

It seems that this way you are badgering him to make a workaround easier to accomplish.

JMTPW.

DG

========================

Davegee,

Not sure why you use the word 'badger' but this has been just a simple request that I think would make this specific selection to be a bit more obvious in what it seems it can do (only 100% or less). The problem with 'Cover Screen', at the present time, is that it can be applied to only one image at a time. The % of the slide to show main images can be applied to the entire list of slides with one click. I am sure many use 'Cover Screen' for their specific purpose and I would not want to disrupt that process. I don't think changing the % of the slide to show main images choice to be a slider is such a big deal but it will illuminate other possibilities (increasing to more than 100%). And I can't really see any purpose for it to be only for reducing the size of images to be below 100%. I don't think making it a slider for both negative and positive changes would be stepping on anyone's toes. And I suspected, some people, like Jill, did not realize you could type in a percentage greater than 100%.

Gary

[davegee]

Let me try again.

There has been discussion over this feature in the past and, if I remember correctly, there were people who wanted "Fit To Screen" to be the default and others who wanted "Cover Screen" to be the default.

I would argue that where there is a split in opinions about things like this the obvious answer is to make it a Project Options switch which when set would allow ALL images to be inserted in one mode or the other for the duration of the project (or until the option is changed). I would further argue that such options could then be set into a TEMPLATE which contained everything the way you want it: Resolution, AR, KFSD, Fit to Screen or Cover Screen etc etc etc.

When I say "badger" Igor I mean gather enough support to be able to tell Igor - "this is the way it should be".

Does that make sense?

DG

[goddi]

Let me try again.

There has been discussion over this feature in the past and, if I remember correctly, there were people who wanted "Fit To Screen" to be the default and others who wanted "Cover Screen" to be the default.

I would argue that where there is a split in opinions about things like this the obvious answer is to make it a Project Options switch which when set would allow ALL images to be inserted in one mode or the other for the duration of the project (or until the option is changed). I would further argue that such options could then be set into a TEMPLATE which contained everything the way you want it: Resolution, AR, KFSD, Fit to Screen or Cover Screen etc etc etc.

When I say "badger" Igor I mean gather enough support to be able to tell Igor - "this is the way it should be".

Does that make sense?

DG

=================

Greetings Davegee,

I never wanted to get in the middle of the discussion about making the 'Fit To Screen' or 'Cover Screen' to be the default or not. Since I don't use them, I yield to others for this. I just thought it would make sense to make it easier and more obvious to show that the % of the slide to show main images function could be increased to greater than 100%, since it can be done. And I think it is a very useful function to use it as I described in previous postings above and I don't think it takes away from any other functions. I don't think it is a 'workaround.'

Thanks for your thoughts. It's great to have these discussions.

Gary

[davegee]

gary

i feel that there is a possible contradiction here?

i saw your 118% and jills 112% as a way of globally simulating cover screen?

i will leave it like that and let the poll speak for itself. it matters not either way to me but i have voted yes.

dg

[goddi]

gary

i feel that there is a possible contradiction here?

i saw your 118% and jills 112% as a way of globally simulating cover screen?

i will leave it like that and let the poll speak for itself. it matters not either way to me but i have voted yes.

dg

=========================

Davegee,

There really is no contradiction. The beauty of the % of the slide to show main images function is you can put in whatever percentage that suits your needs. My camera's images need about a 118% amount to move the left and right edges of the image to fit the aspect ratio window in PTE. Someone else's images might need a different percentage. You can play with the percentage amount to fit your purposes, to fit the aspect ratio exactly or have it to be more or to be less than the aspect ratio window in O&A. Jill had a good idea to allow you to apply the % of the slide to show main images to different blocks of images to make it even more useful.

The 'Cover Screen' function does not allow you to do this. It will be interesting to see what the poll produces.

Gary

[nobeefstu]

Gary,

Currently, when you click on the down arrow to reveal the scale, you can only move the arrow from 100% to some lesser value.

The % of the slide to show main images setting was originally intended to address overscan differences associated with analog signals. Normally the user needs to lower the % value to compensate for the difference as increasing the % value would only make it worse.

However, when I create my slide shows I usually want to increase all of my images at once by 118% to bring the left and right edges to fill the 16:9 aspect ratio. I know that I can manually enter the 118 value directly into the block but it took me several years before someone told me that this was possible (as opposed to doing it to each image, one by one).

You can effectively use PTE's -cover command line parameter to "bring the left and right edges to fill the 16:9 aspect ratio" without the need to "doing it to each image, one by one)". Your method of adding %18 for your own display can possibly vary the view on other users displays.

[Barry Beckham]

I don't see an issue with the final quality on an image whether you use my method or doing it in Photoshop. Do you?

I can't say I have ever tried to be honest Gary. One thing that I do notice in Photoshop is that if I have a high resolution image on screen that has been compressed (for want of a better word) into a smaller space, I do see a slight difference in the images. I see a slight softening of the high resolution image, but I can't say I have ever carried out any tests to see if this is transferred to PTE. If your a regular Photoshop user you may be aware that if you apply text and text effects like shadows and bevels to a image. You often need to view that image at actual size to see the text crisp and clean. At lower magnifications it can often look a bit crinkly.

I have always resized images to the size I wish to use them, I suppose because in the early days we had no choice if we wanted the slide show to run smoothly at 1024*768. Things are different now and if you get the result you want, then I am a great believer in staying with what works for you.

Having said that I confess to being a little confused after reading a later addition you made. I assumed your approach was to place images directly from your camera into your slide show, so they would be far greater in pixel dimensions than 1920*1080, but later in the thread you say:-

Yes, I resize my images to 1920 on the long side, to reduce the overall size of the PTE exe file.

If you do that before increasing the width to 118% as you described, arn't you affecting image quality by displaying pictures oversize, or have I missed something?

[Bert]

Gary,

The % of the slide to show main images setting was originally intended to address overscan differences associated with analog signals. Normally the user needs to lower the % value to compensate for the difference as increasing the % value would only make it worse.

You can effectively use PTE's -cover command line parameter to "bring the left and right edges to fill the 16:9 aspect ratio" without the need to "doing it to each image, one by one)". Your method of adding %18 for your own display can possibly vary the view on other users displays.

What and where is the "cover command line parameter", I have asked a few months ago if there was a batch method to fill in all the left and right edges of any aspect ratio image, since the default is that the top and bottom are filled in.

Bert

[goddi]

Yes, I resize my images to 1920 on the long side, to reduce the overall size of the PTE exe file.

If you do that before increasing the width to 118% as you described, arn't you affecting image quality by displaying pictures oversize, or have I missed something?

===================

Barry,

Hmmmmm..... You've got me thinking. I always used 1920 on the long size because that is an established size. However, I think I see your point. If I want to fill the 16:9 aspect ratio in PTE, what is the proper size I should use if not 1920? It is late so I can't experiment right now but is there a known value so I don't have to do a lot of testing. If I follow your logic, and resize it to fit, then I don't have to increase the size to 118% and I will be at the same spot where I only have to worry about moving the image up or down to satisfy best crop?

Thanks,

Gary

[Barry Beckham]

Well, I have been around digital photography a long time and also Photoshop and rightly or wrongly I will always size my images to the size they will be seen.

I really can't see any point in spending a large amount of money on a camera to deliver quality images, then spend time and effort to take pictures, then put them in a slide show trusting to luck to some degree. Sorry, that doesn't sound quite how I meant it, no offense intended.

Broadly speaking (very broadly) there are two types of slide show. Image based and story based. Story based slide shows are not quite so dependant on great quality images, because the story/commentary generally carries the whole thing.

In image based slide shows and from what I see, they contribute 95% of what is posted, the images must be really, really good, if the slide show is to have appeal and staying power.

Why give up ANY chance of that to save a few minutes.

[nobeefstu]

Bert,

What and where is the "cover command line parameter", I have asked a few months ago if there was a batch method to fill in all the left and right edges of any aspect ratio image, since the default is that the top and bottom are filled in.

Making your "any aspect ratio image" EXE slideshow using the -cover command line parameter is not going to effectively apply the full screen edge-to-edge you desire. All of your images need to be of the same aspect ratio because the -cover parameter is not applied on an individual slide basis during EXE playback of mixed/multi aspect images.

General details of the indexed topic Command Line Parameters for Slide Shows can be found in the v7 Users Guide on page 78.

The User Guide describes only the BAT file execution of the parameters. Its also possible to execute the parameters from a slide show file shortcut by modifying the properties target file string or adding the parameters to a button object or slide show exit actions with Run Application or Run Slideshow .