Image Sizing

[gwfrost]

I believe I am like most, in sizing the images prior to using them in PTE so as to optimise the performance of a slide show.

I think it would be a productivity boost if it were possible to set your desired screen size i.e. 1024 X 768 for example and then to be able to drop your full size images in (doing away with pre resizing) , set the image as you want it within the slide and for PTE to optimise the image based on the parameters set . Also options to Auto fit, stretch, crop and do nothing to be able to set preferred default for this feature.

[Lin Evans]

Hi Jack,

There is potentially a serious problem with doing things this way. When creating a show, there may be a need to do a deep zoom-in on a particular image. To maintain image quality when zooming beyond 1:1 it's necessary to have a higher resolution original than for images where no zoom in is required. If all images were automatically optimized for a specific display size, this extremely valuable feature would be defeated.

So the convenience of not having to resize or resample to optimize file size and increase convenience would cause issues for a number of shows where having high resolution images are very important. Actually, at the present time, there is no need to resample at all unless the show might either exceed system resources by going beyond a system limitation such as the two gigabyte limit of 32 bit systems or exceed the capabilities of less than optimal older systems. As I'm sure you know, PTE automatically resizes all images to fit the display resolution of the display device within the selected aspect ratio.

Best regards,

Lin

[JEB]

Hi Jack,

There is potentially a serious problem with doing things this way. When creating a show, there may be a need to do a deep zoom-in on a particular image. To maintain image quality when zooming beyond 1:1 it's necessary to have a higher resolution original than for images where no zoom in is required. If all images were automatically optimized for a specific display size, this extremely valuable feature would be defeated.

So the convenience of not having to resize or resample to optimize file size and increase convenience would cause issues for a number of shows where having high resolution images are very important. Actually, at the present time, there is no need to resample at all unless the show might either exceed system resources by going beyond a system limitation such as the two gigabyte limit of 32 bit systems or exceed the capabilities of less than optimal older systems. As I'm sure you know, PTE automatically resizes all images to fit the display resolution of the display device within the selected aspect ratio.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

I fuller explanation of you last sentence would be appreciated, by me at least, as this is something I was not aware of.

"As I'm sure you know, PTE automatically resizes all images to fit the display resolution of the display device within the selected aspect ratio."

Leaving aside the zooming/panning element my interpretation of the above suggests to me that there is no need whatsoever to resize - this surely can't be true?

Cheers,

John

[jt49]

Simple resizing, of course, cannot be the solution. If PTE would offer some kind of resizing it had to be more intelligent. A possible solution could be as follows: The user introduces (perhaps large) images to some PTE project. PTE would never use these images directly but would always work with copies (more or less calculated automatically). First, these copies could be made according to the present monitor with respect to zoom parameters, monitor size and color profile. In case when the user changes some zoom parameters, or changes the monitor, part of the copies had to be recalculated. In case when the user wants to generate an Exe version of the show he might enter screen parameters and color information about the system where the show is going to be presented, and PTE would (automatically) produce the corresponding image data (based on the originals).

jt

[Lin Evans]

Hi John,

What I mean is if you create your slideshow and in Project Options, Screen Tab, do not specify "Fixed Size of Slide," PTE will size the image to fit the size the the display within the parameters of the chosen aspect ratio. For example, if I use an original image of say 1600x1200 and display the exe file on a 1024x768 display, the image will fill the screen to the level I have zoomed within my show without distortion. If I display it on a 1600x1200 resolution display, it will use the original file dimension to fill the screen in the same way without distortion. If I instead used, for example, an original of 24 megapixel resolution such as 4928x3264 pixels, this image would likewise only fill the screen on a 1024x768 pixel display or on a 1600x1200 pixel display. If I displayed this image on a 2650x1600 display it would fill the screen just as with smaller resolution displays.

The difference with the 4928x3264 image would be that I could zoom in to the original 1:1 pixel level of this high resolution image and not lose any quality. On the other hand, had I used an original 1024x768 and zoomed in to the identical screen display view, the quality of the image would be severely compromised because it would be resized from 1024x768 to 4928x3264 for the deep zoom.

Best regards,

Lin

[gwfrost]

Hi All

Thanks for your comments, I don't disagree with comments about retaining quality within the image its important. However, I feel that you may have misunderstood my intention, what I am proposing is an option for PTE to resize the images, it my not be appropriate in every case. The request is for it to be an option that can be switched on and off as required.

A typical use may be when you want to put something together real fast, with a couple of fades you can drop the images into PTE, with the desired screen size set, straight from the camera file which in my case would be approx 9 MB with image pixel size of 3456 X 5184. So in one hit I have placed the over sized file, created my slide show and PTE does the resizing and optimisation based one the way I have set up my slide image based on the screen size that's been set zoom etc.

[JEB]

Thanks Lin,

As ever a full explanation.

That was what I thought you were referring to.

Initially when I read your first reply I thought it possible that someone could have misinterpreted it in the way I suggested above.

Cheers

John

[JEB]

Hi Jack, et al,

This is just the sort of facility I believe Igor should be considering for the future if he hopes to broaden the user base. I know that having to resize images is one of the BIG off-putting aspects of PTE for potential new users.

Regards

John

[davegee]

..........what I am proposing is an option for PTE to resize the images, it my not be appropriate in every case...........

Hi Jack,

After re-sizing what would PTE then do with the images?

Are you suggesting that PTE would overwrite the originals or create resized copies to use? They have to exist somewhere?

I suppose that theoretically Igor could build a module of the old PIXBUILDER into PTE to deal with it - but would he want to?

DG

[jt49]

...

After re-sizing what would PTE then do with the images?

Are you suggesting that PTE would overwrite the originals or create resized copies to use? They have to exist somewhere?

...

Look at my post above. Some competitors work that way.

jt

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Jack, et al,

This is just the sort of facility I believe Igor should be considering for the future if he hopes to broaden the user base. I know that having to resize images is one of the BIG off-putting aspects of PTE for potential new users.

Regards

John

It doesn't put me off. Most images have to have a certain amount of post processing, straightening, cropping, sharpening etc. IMO re-sizing is just another step along the way to perfection. :P/>/> However I've reduced my PP by having a camera that I can change the aspect ratio to match my show size.

Yachtsman1.

[gwfrost]

HI DG

I certainly would not advocate the over writing of the original files, once resized they should get saved off as new images, in their resized state, renamed as the original file name but with an addition to the name, maybe a simple alpha, number increment, PTE could create a subdirectory under the original directory and stick them in there.

[gwfrost]

It doesn't put me off. Most images have to have a certain amount of post processing, straightening, cropping, sharpening etc. IMO re-sizing is just another step along the way to perfection. :P/>/>/> However I've reduced my PP by having a camera that I can change the aspect ratio to match my show size.

Yachtsman1.

Hi Yachtsman1

We all work in different ways, I respect your approach but its not for me. I always take my pictures at the maximum size as I use them in many different ways, I do post process them but I don't ever change the size of the originals. I make copies and then resize those to meet my needs. Which is why I am suggesting that it would be good if PTE had the facility to do the grunt work for me.

[PGA]

I make copies and then resize those to meet my needs. Which is why I am suggesting that it would be good if PTE had the facility to do the grunt work for me.

Batch resize and convert to Jpeg (one pass) in IrfanView will do that for you with just a handful of clicks - and its free!

[JEB]

It doesn't put me off. Most images have to have a certain amount of post processing, straightening, cropping, sharpening etc. IMO re-sizing is just another step along the way to perfection. :Pstyle="border: 0px; vertical-align: middle; color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">/>/> However I've reduced my PP by having a camera that I can change the aspect ratio to match my show size. <br style="color: rgb(28, 40, 55); font-size: 13px; line-height: 19px; background-color: rgb(250, 251, 252);">Yachtsman1.

Hi,

I agree with what you are saying. Like most of the people who participate on this forum I have grown up with this approach and accept the benefits.

However I KNOW that many potential new users are put off by this type of "complication" as they see it.

If the user base is to increase then PTE NEEDS to be made more user friendly at the outset.

Regards

John

[Barry Beckham]

I think PTE should decide to make a slide show for me, select the images, resize them, find some music and throw together a slide show. Then let me know when it's done via a pop up on my computer. :rolleyes:/> Then of course it should post the result to You tube because I can't be bothered with the hassle of that.

Why doesn't anyone say the obvious that if you want to create anything of merit you have to actually do something. If you just think about the difference between the aspect ratio of the images (3:2 mostly) and the slide show (maybe 16:9) then how would the computer know what part of the image you want. It's handing over creative control to a machine.

As long as you don't have your images jumping all over the screen you can use high resolution images directly from the camera. Images from a Canon 21Mp camera are 500k or less when saved as jpegs. They will work fine on all but the oldest systems.

You could achieve almost the same ends by making the default in the Essentials Edition "Cover Screen"

[cjdnzl]

Batch resize and convert to Jpeg (one pass) in IrfanView will do that for you with just a handful of clicks - and its free!

That is correct, and you can save the sized images into another folder ready for PTE to access and use as the exclusive folder for that show

This is how I do it, and I once again air my belief that PTE should not try to emulate existing programs that already do the job.

Colin

[Guest Yachtsman1]

Hi Yachtsman1

We all work in different ways, I respect your approach but its not for me. I always take my pictures at the maximum size as I use them in many different ways, I do post process them but I don't ever change the size of the originals. I make copies and then resize those to meet my needs. Which is why I am suggesting that it would be good if PTE had the facility to do the grunt work for me.

I didn't say I re-size the originals then discard the originals, which is what you are implying, my originals are stored on 2 1TB hard drives & they are there in case I ever need to re-use them. Who knows what will happen to aspect ratios in the future, maybe one day the photography/ film industry will come to its senses & use 1-1 :blink:/>

Yachtsman1.

[ayjayh]

Hi John,

What I mean is if you create your slideshow and in Project Options, Screen Tab, do not specify "Fixed Size of Slide," PTE will size the image to fit the size the the display within the parameters of the chosen aspect ratio. For example, if I use an original image of say 1600x1200 and display the exe file on a 1024x768 display, the image will fill the screen to the level I have zoomed within my show without distortion. If I display it on a 1600x1200 resolution display, it will use the original file dimension to fill the screen in the same way without distortion. If I instead used, for example, an original of 24 megapixel resolution such as 4928x3264 pixels, this image would likewise only fill the screen on a 1024x768 pixel display or on a 1600x1200 pixel display. If I displayed this image on a 2650x1600 display it would fill the screen just as with smaller resolution displays.

The difference with the 4928x3264 image would be that I could zoom in to the original 1:1 pixel level of this high resolution image and not lose any quality. On the other hand, had I used an original 1024x768 and zoomed in to the identical screen display view, the quality of the image would be severely compromised because it would be resized from 1024x768 to 4928x3264 for the deep zoom.

Best regards,

Lin

Hello everyone,

I am a complete newbie to P2E having just installed the trial version (8) this morning. I am however an experienced user of other video software.

From what I am reading on this resizing topic it would seem that Lin is saying I can use images straight from the camera (4608x3072 in my case, letting the software adjust size of final image depending on the user's display size.

Somewhere you stated that the only caveat is that the system resources can cope with it.

But what about the finished exe file sizes? Surely bigger source images result in bigger file sizes!

I made a short test file using images I had scaled down to 1152x768 and ended up with an exe file size of 9.4 MB. I repeated the the operation using my original images at 4608x3072 and the resulting file size was 254 MB.

This seems to prove my assumption that finished file size is at least proportional to the pixel count, if not more so.

Perhaps not a problem when viewing on your own setup, but what if you want to email the finished file to someone, or put a download link on your website?

Best wishes to you all,

Tony

[Lin Evans]

Hi Tony,

Actually, it all depends on what type of show you are creating, how much zooming in tight you intend or need to do and the resources available on the computer which is used to play the executable. There are limitations, but in normal shows it's not very often that they are exceeded. What I do is use images no larger in pixel dimensions than the display resolution I expect to be used to play the show except for those images where I either crop or zoom in tight. In such cases I may use originals. In my own case it "could" be anywhere from a 10 megapixel capture to an 80 megapixel capture. Generally, I try to limit my originals to no larger than about 30 megapixel optical resolution even for heavy zooms, but there are times when I use a Phase One P65 or a Leaf Credo 80 which one of my good friends has and lets me borrow occasionally.

As long as 32 bit limits are not exceeded, things work quite well. Personally, I have no need or interest in having PTE downsample and save my images under another name. It's just as easy for me to downsample those I want using the batch features of Irfanview and leave the original size for only those necessary. Having PTE do this on the fly would just prolong what is normally a pretty efficient operation and in my own case would not be a feature I would care to use. I can understand why some might want everything done for them in software, but letting the user make those decisions is the very thing which sets PTE apart for quality of images in our slideshows.

There are a number of really good sampling algorithms and they are not free. It would increase the cost of our product for Igor to license different resampling libraries just to make everyone happy with the particular algorithm of choice. And then there is the issue of choosing the amount and type of sharpening used. In my opinion it would constitute a can of worms which probably should not be opened. As stated earlier, one doesn't have to downsample their images with PTE. It's only if they want an inordinately large number of images in their show that it might become necessary, or if there is lots of animation which non optimal systems couldn't handle.

As for the size of the finished show, that's a variable which is entirely up to the individual. If one needs to keep it small enough to email, then relatively small images would be necessary. On the other hand, I often create shows of 500 megabytes in size and really no one has complained about download time if the content is sufficient to interest them. It's horses for courses and it's really not possible to have our cake and eat it too.

It's something the developers would have to think about, but what sets this product apart is image quality and versatility. The competition may have such features and perhaps for some people these are important factors. I don't see these being overly important for the professional or for the serious AV user. After all, the products with such features are nowhere to be found where the rubber hits the road. PTE is by far the most popular tool for AV competition and the professional photographer is much more interested in quality than in "convenience" in my experience. Just my $.02

Best regards,

Lin

Hello everyone,

I am a complete newbie to P2E having just installed the trial version (8) this morning. I am however an experienced user of other video software.

From what I am reading on this resizing topic it would seem that Lin is saying I can use images straight from the camera (4608x3072 in my case, letting the software adjust size of final image depending on the user's display size.

Somewhere you stated that the only caveat is that the system resources can cope with it.

But what about the finished exe file sizes? Surely bigger source images result in bigger file sizes!

I made a short test file using images I had scaled down to 1152x768 and ended up with an exe file size of 9.4 MB. I repeated the the operation using my original images at 4608x3072 and the resulting file size was 254 MB.

This seems to prove my assumption that finished file size is at least proportional to the pixel count, if not more so.

Perhaps not a problem when viewing on your own setup, but what if you want to email the finished file to someone, or put a download link on your website?

Best wishes to you all,

Tony

[JEB]

Hi,

Firstly let me make it clear that I have no particularly strong desire for a tool to resize images. I happen to believe that it would be an asset but I have managed up till now without it.

However, I fail to see how providing such a tool (AS AN OPTIONAL FUNCTION) would be a bad thing. I make no apology for muscling in on this topic as it adds fuel to my campaign to see PTE made more user friendly.

I repeat again, as I have said on many occasions in the past, I think that sometimes those of us who have been using the product for many years forget how much there is to learn for the newcomer. Let's not forget that whenever we started, PTE it was considerably simpler than it is now. We have been able to absorb the changes and developments over time, unlike new users of today. But perhaps more importantly and sadly, I believe that there are many artistically talented potential users who have limited computer/technical talents, who are quite definitely put off by the complexity of the product as it exists today.

If by making is simpler to use (without removing manual intervention) how does that affect those who have lived with the product for many years and delight in its idiosyncrasies and complexities? They can still use the old ways and stretch its potential to the benefit of us all. Why should the facilities of PTE only be for an elite group of enthusiasts?

Take Styles for example. Surely the provision of this facility is not too dissimilar to the argument for having a tool that would resize original images. As I understand it, those who understand the process of creating styles can and I'm certain will, design their own styles. Those of us who can't get our minds round the process are just going to have to make do with the standard issues. Yes and those kindly provided by the "elite". Provided that is we can understand the totally inadequate explanations that have been provided. Sorry, perhaps that's a bit below the belt. However, it raises a related reality and that is that currently no adequate central teaching resource exists. Yes, I know all the reasons for this and about all the generous material that our senior members provide that is scattered about the web and that Igor has plans for Wiki etc., etc..

My reasons for regularly campaigning in this way are sincere. I love using PTE, I am not interested in any other product. I have no way of knowing but can only assume that Igor and Wnsoft have to continually develop not only the product but also the user base. So why put up barriers against potential users? It is in our interests that PTE continues to evolve otherwise it could eventually disappear. That is a virtual certainty.

Regards

John

P.S. Yesterday a friend remarked to me that he didn't like the parking sensors on his car but that the manufacturer had provided the option to switch them off ! As the youngsters might remark "Cool" !

[JEB]

Hi Dave,

I am reluctant to answer your question here because I would prefer not to detract further than I have been guilty of doing allready from the original post. I will simply say that I have not as yet found the inspiration to devote the time and energy that for me, I believe will be necessary, to get to grips with this topic. Perhaps sometime elsewhere on the forum this could be discussed.

Thanks for your interest.

John