Ernst Posted March 17, 2003 Report Share Posted March 17, 2003 I have been playing a bit now with resizing the window for a show (at the screen options, % of the normal size of the image). And with an mp3 file as background sound.I have images of 1024x768, and fade-in transition. It seemed to me that when I resize the window (I have been using 75%) the show runs smoother that with a 100% screen.Is that right?If so, how does it work? I understand that the kb of the image doesn´t change, and so doesn´t the size of the slide either, right? It is justr a change on the screenIs this due to the loading time of the image on the screen that the show goes better. That is, the resized window loads faster? Even if I use the resized window, with a smaller size of the image (on the screen), using 1024x768 images adds very much to the total weight of the show (mb). Right?If everything is Yes, then I feel very comfortable today, I am confirming my knowledge, and will get me a drink this afternoon.RegardsErnst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernst Posted March 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Hey, somebody there?Some expertise on this topic in the forum?RegardsErnst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Hello ErnstThere are several things that can affect the smoothness of the fade transition.Firstly, as you have correctly said the size in Kb of the compressed file is important. If the program has to load in a large image file it will take longer to fetch from the disk or CD than a small one, and hence affect the smooth running of the show. For a 1024x768 dimension image, you should be able to compress the file down to about 180-200Kb before any noticeable decrease in quality.Secondly, if you are using 75% of the screen (ie not the full 1024x768 resolution), then the processor has 25% less pixels to change. This means the fade is less processor intensive and hence could be smoother if the processor isn't powerful enough to handle a full screen fade.If you are only using 75% of the screen area anyway, you'd be better off using 800x600 images, as this would give you a 1:1 display. Using 75% of the screen with a 1024 x 768 image will mean that you're making the screenshow discard 25% of the pixels to make it fit.Ian Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernst Posted March 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Thanks, Ian for your clear and detailed (and generous) explanation.It is clear to me now. I want to process some shows with a navigation bar, and I didn´t see it before. This will take care of that too, I think. I will work with 800x600 images, and some reduction of the screen to maybe 75%. I have seen also from the visitors of my web site, that there is still a high proportion of people using 800x600 resolution 56%, as compared to 41% with 1024x768. The gap is getting smaller although. But 640x480 are only 1% Although it is an Internet visitor statistics, I feel that this trend will also be maintained with persons (relatives and friends) to whom I eventually will give PTE shows, and who still use extensively the 800x600 screen resolution. It is also funny to verify, that many persons don´t even know that their monitor allows a higher resolution.RegardsErnst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cox Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Ernst, you quote figures about reolution -- now ask the same people whether they are using laptops please post your findings.ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernst Posted March 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Sorry, Ken. I don´t have those numbers. What I posted was an instantaneous statistics of the hit (visit) counter am using at my web site. They do not give the type of computer visitors are using. BTW, those numbers change also, depending who is visiting at that particular moment. Just took a look, and it was 58% for 800x600 and 38% for 1024x768.I do not know (only very approximately) how many of my friends and family members have notebooks and PCs. And in addition, whether they are using PCs or notebooks to watch shows. Additionally what their screen resolution is. And ... what the speed of their processor is. I am sorry that I could not answer your question precisely, but only with an excuse.RegardsErnst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken Cox Posted March 18, 2003 Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Ernst, went tohttp://www.nedstatbasic.net/s?tab=1&link=1&id=1709522but systran http://www.systransoft.com/could /would not translate the figures tried Spanish to English and Portuguese to Englishken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernst Posted March 18, 2003 Author Report Share Posted March 18, 2003 Well, I should have stopped after Ian´s clear response to my question. Ian was very precise answering all my doubts. Now I feel we are going off-road, and so I want to stop discussing more on this topic.Thanks, Ian, thanks Ken, I am using Nedstatbasic for my traffic statistics, and also my web-hosting service provides me with much more detailed information on traffic. But I feel now we are going nowhere and I feel guilty to having included data on traffic and stastitics for my site, as an example of the general trend of usage of resolution at PCs, and then derived to family and friends. I have messed things up.. And on how many people use what resolution. Maybe I made a mistake, and this topic discussion could go forever and to nowhere. I´ll stop here, OK? I hope also that errors have rights, in the present time we are living in the world.RegardsErnst Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.