Auto resize Pictures

[thedom]

When the user chooses to create an exe, there would be an option to automatically resize the pictures depending on the resolution width he chooses (1024 px, 1280 px, 1600 px, HD, etc...).

Of course, if the user doesn't choose the option, the pictures are kept as they are.

What do you think of this idea ?

[davegee]

Dom,

Would this be a "virtual" resize or an "actual" resize?

If you are suggesting an "actual" resize then are you suggesting that it be saved in the same way as a converted video?

DG

[thedom]

I have no idea how a converted video is saved, but yes, I mean "actual" size to reduce the size of the exe.

If you vote "No", please explain why you are against the idea. I think it would be a nice timesaver for not "serious" slideshow.

Anyway, it would be only an option when creating an exe.

Thanks :-)

[davegee]

In that case I have voted no. I would want complete control over the process of resizing using my own choice of software.

DG

[thedom]

You would still have complete control...

Just do not check the option when creating the exe ;-)

[goddi]

You would still have complete control...

Just do not check the option when creating the exe ;-)

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

It is an interesting and, probably, useful idea. I just hope it does not just give use nebulous choice of 'Quality percentage' that the video converter gives (I still don't know what it is doing).

Also, I think I would want to be able to re-do the resizing so that it would allow me to overwrite the previous resized images. For example, if I initially chose to resize a group of images and I later determined it was resized too small, I'd like to be able to re-run the resizing so that I have the choice to overwrite the previously resized images to avoid multiple names for the same images. This would avoid the 'filename.converted.converted.jpg' as we get with the video converter if we re-convert a converted video.

Gary

[davegee]

Some would find this very useful.

I have always had concerns about re-saving JPEGs (even once!).

DG

[xahu34]

As an option I would find this useful. Actually I had assumed PTE was resizing images when this option (fixed size of slide) was selected ...

No, this is not the case. This fixed size only prevents enlargement of slides to sizes greater than the one that has been fixed.

Regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

...

I have always had concerns about re-saving JPEGs (even once!).

...

Do you like resizing on the fly? It may be that preprocessed resizing plus one extra compression will give a better result.

Regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

...

What do you think of this idea ?

Yes, I like this idea. I've made a similar proposal only recently in a thread on color management. Resizing should not be the only option for preprocessing. It should also be possible to choose the color profile for the final presentation device. So, resizing and color management could be done in one step. See also here.

Regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

Do you like resizing on the fly? I don't think so?

It may be that preprocessed resizing plus one extra compression will give a better result.

I like to make the JPEG exact size for purpose for "static" images. If zoom is required I size to suit the Maximum zoom % that I will use.

Regards,

Xaver

[JEB]

Yes,

I think that this would be a worth while option provided we were able to go back to or in some way identify slides that should NOT be resized (zoom). For this very reason I tend to work with full sized images when creating my shows and only resize once I have decided on which images I am going to use. I could be selecting from 100 images and only using 30 or 40 so it makes sense not to resize until I have decided which to use and indeed whether I wish to crop.

John

[cjdnzl]

Well, I vote "no" for this idea.

Basically, I am opposed to adding virtually endless 'features' to a piece of software where the add-on is not part of the fundamental program design.

In particular, there have been calls for PTE to handle complicated audio functions which are already handled by more comprehensive software like Audacity or GoldWave, both of which are ahead of anything that may be built into PTE, and the same goes for handling images as well.

Photoshop and Lightroom, along with freebies like Gimp and Irfanview can do far more with images - including auto-resizing - than could be done with any reasonable addition to PTE. I think we should not ask Igor to spend time on peripheral issues which will take him away from continuing development of PTE.

In my own case, I assemble the sound track in GoldWave, with fades and changes, and accommodating voice-over where needed, all into one composite sound track, and import that track into PTE.

I process my images out of the camera through DxOptics Pro, then titivate any images that require individual treatment in Photoshop or Irfanview, then batch resize, converting to DNG images at the same time before importing them onto PTE.

I keep a folder for each show holding all processed full-size images. Then I resize to fit the chosen screen ratio, and proceed to assemble the show itself.

If I decide to alter the screen ratio, all I need to do is to resize the original images to the new size, drop them into PTE, change PTE's ratio, job done.

[Ken Cox]

cjdnzl

says it all

thanks

ken

[nobeefstu]

Dom,

What do you think of this idea ?

I would agree only if its kept very basic (simple auto option) and only for distributable EXE (compiled/embedded image resources only ... nothing saved external). As you say ... its purpose is directed towards to reducing for sharing needs. The problem is users are always going to want more control and functions in its use.

However,"cjdnzl" comment says it best for me.

[xahu34]

... The opposite side is that professional users do not wish PTE to crop or resize their images ...

I do not agree with that statement, and it is funny to read other ones here. On the PTE homepage you will find the word "professional". But do you think that an AV professional (who works on AV productions for customers day by day) will use PTE? I don't think so. A professional wants to export executables that are customized with respect to the resolutions and the color settings of the destination monitors. This customization should be done automatically, as it takes a lot of time to do it manually, time that a professional cannot spend. It's almost evident that an AV tool like Wings offers this kind of support.

Regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

... You should consider posting to the ideas and suggestions sub forum the additional items you have mentioned (color profiles, etc...

This has already been done, see here.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Xaver,

At least one "professional" uses PTE - he has just posted his reasons and a couple samples.... I'm not certain that what Wings offers is all that much more important for all "professionals" than a number of the things which can be done quicker, easier and often with fewer "bugs" in PTE than with Wings. In witness to that are a number of former Wings users in RV competitions who now prefer PTE.

Best regards,

Lin

I do not agree with that statement, and it is funny to read other ones here. On the PTE homepage you will find the word "professional". But do you think that an AV professional (who works on AV productions for customers day by day) will use PTE? I don't think so. A professional wants to export executables that are customized with respect to the resolutions and the color settings of the destination monitors. This customization should be done automatically, as it takes a lot of time to do it manually, time that a professional cannot spend. It's almost evident that an AV tool like Wings offers this kind of support.

Regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

Hi Lin,

We should avoid political statements here. Regarding Wings, I just reported a fact. And it is a fact that the high priced competitors from Germany and Austria work with preprocessed image data (including automatic resizing), and they offer color management, as well. I myself have permanent access to a Wings Pro license (dongle), but I have not even installed Wings on my computer, as I do not like it at all. As I only prepare a few AV productions per year, some manual transformations do not constitute a serious problem for me, although it would be nice to have some more support. But I think that a professional AV designer who has to ask for about 100 Euros per hour cannot tell the customer: I have to charge for another 3 hours for image resizing

Best regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

At those prices does the customer not have the right to expect that the resizing has been done in pro software specifically designed for that purpose??

I am not pre judging anything that Igor might come up with if he decides to go down this road but it seems that your argument is based on cost-cutting for the Pro and not quality for the customer??

JMHO

DG

[xahu34]

Dave,

The discussion here on professionals is only a side issue. The question is: Should PTE offer support for resizing images (and for color space transformations, as well)? You like it to ride about quality. In my opinion it should be possible to find a simple logic (depending on mode, screen size , zoom value, ...) that will result in images that will satisfy your requirements. We are talking about an option that could chosen for all, or perhaps only for part of the images. This is not a question of quality, but of usability.

Best regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

I have already replied to the original question.

The subject seemed to have changed direction - not by by me?

I merely added my thoughts with regard to the change of direction.

Xaver, I have ALWAYS approached anything to do with PTE from the point of view of quality - nothing has changed here. Why can we not have Usability AND quality at the same time?

DG

[potwnc]

I voted yes. I actually suggested exactly the same thing in this forum some time back. Not that this would be at the top of my wish list for future PTE additions - that would be the 64-bit version.

[Lin Evans]

Actually, there are "professionals" using PTE - I've used PTE "professionally" for a number of years making my clients which have been some pretty prestigious art galleries and museums quite happy with AV shows. I don't believe I'm the only one doing this either.

For my clients, there is absolutely zero advantage in using Wings except considerably more cost. The end product is no better for all the additional cost, and the difficulty in my experience a great deal more. The only time I would consider using Wings Platinum is if there were multiple projections, curved screens and other considerations not possible with PTE. In the vast majority of cases for my purposes Wings is overkill and m.Objects simply not stable enough. I have a friend in Norway who puts on extremely professional AV theatrical shows with huge projections, dozens of displays and high resolution video and he doesn't use Wings, m.Objects or PTE.

The problem arises when we define the term "Professional Use." Professional means being paid for what you do. I have been paid very well for both my photography and for my creation of AV products by my clients and I find no problem at all with defining PTE as a Professional tool.

As for the length of time it takes to produce the end product - that depends greatly on the skills of the user. What might take an experienced user of PTE a few hours could take a week to do with Wings Platinum depending on the degree and type of desired end product. If serious animation is involved, in my experience it's no contest. PTE wins hands down.

PTE works very well for me as it is without the "features" used by lesser products. I would be very happy if someone would send me a "professional" AV made with Wings Platinum to be played on a single projected screen or high resolution display which is superior in any way to what I can accomplish with PTE.

What the developers must decide is if they want to dabble with countless "features" to make the product more amenable to those who would probably be quite happy with the "standard" version or if they want to concentrate on the more important things which the experienced AV worker or professional photographer wants. Not having this feature under discussion has not kept PTE from being the # 1 choice among serious AV competitors. There are countless products which resize, resample, rename, etc., and adding that as yet another option to PTE seem to me to be superfluous. Will it really help sell the product? If so to whom? What are people using now which they will give up for PTE and for what purpose are they using their present product?

That's my $.02

Best regards,

Lin

I do not agree with that statement, and it is funny to read other ones here. On the PTE homepage you will find the word "professional". But do you think that an AV professional (who works on AV productions for customers day by day) will use PTE? I don't think so. A professional wants to export executables that are customized with respect to the resolutions and the color settings of the destination monitors. This customization should be done automatically, as it takes a lot of time to do it manually, time that a professional cannot spend. It's almost evident that an AV tool like Wings offers this kind of support.

Regards,

Xaver

[JEB]

Hi,

I vote "yes".

I agree with Tom, but for the use of the word "professional" - splitting hairs perhaps?

John