Comments requested please

[Ronniebootwest]

This image was created on a monitor of 1680 x 1050 x 96

I am keen to learn how it displays on other monitors, e.g. are there any borders showing around the image?

Ron West

[Ken Cox]

YES ALL 4 SIDES

+- 3/16" SIDES - 1/4" TOP

1024/768 MY SETTINGS

KEN

[jfa]

My screen is set to 1280x960 and your image gives a small white border top, bottom and left with a larger white area on the right.

I have attached a screen-shoot that I hope will show you the way your image is displayed Ron.

When I centre the image the result is similar to that Ken obtained.

[PhilG]

Ron

After our recent e-mail conversation I think what you probably want to know is if the image displays the texture correctly.

It is looking good on my 1680x1050 monitor, displaying the effect correctly. I really like this image.

I know if you try to dislay an image with a canvas texture on a computer set to different resolutions, you could have a strange almost moire effect.

You just have to make sure you do not allow P2E to resize your image.

Phil

[davegee]

Might I suggest that you try a different texture?

That one displays obvious "tiling" and I have never used it for that reason.

The only really natural one they have is the Sandstone.

DaveG

[Ken Cox]

on my monitor

Ron's original image looks different than the image posted by John

Ron's is straight screen effect/matt board

John's is wavy screen effect/matt board

ken

[jfa]

You are correct Ken there does appear to be a difference when I view the two images side by side.

Originally I viewed Rons image in iExplorer, (as the screen-shoot shows), used Print Screen to copy, pasted into Paint, saved as a JPEG, then posted the image back in my original post.

At some point it would appear that the contrast in the texture has increased, I suspect this was in the conversion from BMP to JPEG in paint.

Here is the same thing done with Irfanview.

I have just found that If you click on either image in my posts to view the screen-shoot at 100% the effect vanishes and the screen-shoot has the same texture as Rons original image.

[Ken Cox]

still wavy

no need to do screenshot

just r mouse the opened pict and save as

ken

[jfa]

Silly me!!

I was doing the right click on the thumbnail in Rons post and not on the view of the full image and wondering why I only got a 1.9K size image, so I did a screen-shoot instead.

Time for an early night I think, (maybe some of that good whiskey first).

[Ronniebootwest]

Might I suggest that you try a different texture?

That one displays obvious "tiling" and I have never used it for that reason.

The only really natural one they have is the Sandstone.

DaveG

Hi Dave,

I have noticed this 'tiling' effect myself - it is caused by the 'Texturiser' settings being to high, i.e. if the relief slider is set higher than 1.

I found that keeping the relief down to 1, usually eliminates it. However, the low screen resolution also seems to have an adverse effect on this particular filter.

With my resolution set to 1680x1050, it is perfect.

What is the resolution of your monitor please?

Ron

[mbskels]

This image was created on a monitor of 1680 x 1050 x 96

I am keen to learn how it displays on other monitors, e.g. are there any borders showing around the image?

Hi Ron,

The size of the margin displayed round the image will depend on the browser being used to view the image and the default browser settings. It will therefore vary from user to user. Or have I misinterpreted your question?

Malcolm

[Barry Beckham]

The borders will vary depending on whether you will you disable scaling of images. Here are how they look on my 1280*1024 monitor.

If you create your images in Photoshop and set the ppi to 72, you will see the texture better than 96. When I looked at your image in PS @ 96, then selected the zoom and then print size (ie display size in PTE) The texture was too tight and looked bad.

At 72, it reflects what I saw in PTE.

Setting 72 has no affect on the image in pte at all, but it does allow us to easily see what we will get in PTE while still in the image editor.

The canvas weave is also probably the worst option for that tiling effect you mentioned. There are others, and some buried in the photoshop install files that offer better control than the weave. (IMHO)

[davegee]

Hi Ron,

Like some others I am a little confused about what it is you want us to report on.

I can't save the file as a JPEG in order to look at it in actual pixels in PS etc so it is difficult to make any comment. Whenever I try (in both IE and Firefox) all I can get is a HTML version.

Perhaps you could post it in different way?

DaveG

Viewing on 1280x1024 - size of monitor irrelevent if I could view at actual pixels, except that it is bigger than my existing monitor res.

Size of my NEW monitor will depend on the decision made by the WPF when they buy their new projector (1050 high OR 1920x1080).

[Ken Cox]

no waviness with either of barry's picts when opened on my browser

or

when saved to disk and when opened with irfanview

i can email the picts to you Dave if you so desire - just say which ones

ken

[davegee]

Oops, sorry - I should have read Ken's post.

I put the image into a PTE show twice. Firstly at "fit to screen" and then "original" and the effect looks the same albeit that one image is slightly bigger on screen than the other. Black lines top and bottom.

No Moire effect on either image.

DaveG

[Barry Beckham]

I was wondering today if something like I have produced here would be of use to us.

Its just a two slide demo, use curser keys to move forward and back.

First image is with the main image scaling disabled and the second one is at the stardard fit to slide.

If we had a test show made to include all the popular sizes we would tell how size and format would look on all size and format screens.

The lines are set in from the edge at 5%, 10% and 15% so we could tell how much of our image may be lost off screen

Just a thought?

http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/size.zip

Only 300k in size

[Ken Cox]

BARRY ON MY 19" LCD AT 1024/768

the yellow is edge to edge all the way around

ken

[Barry Beckham]

Well, that is what I would expect to see on your 1024 screen, but this idea may be more beneficial when we are creating wide screen AV's and we can see how they display on a different resolution/format monitors

It really needs a slide for all popular resolutions.

800*600

1024*768

1280*1024

and so on

[Barry Beckham]

I have added some more sizes, anyone have some more to add

http://www.beckhamdigital.co.uk/size.zip

[Ronniebootwest]

Barry,

You are right! at 72 the texture looks a little better. I had always thought that 72 ppi was for Apple Mac and 96 ppi was for Windows. I will be using 72 for PTE slide shows in future.

DaveG

When I started this thread, I wanted to learn if my image was being seen on smaller resolution screens at full screen or whether it had any borders. I also want to know at what kind of quality it displayed at. On my monitor (1680x1050) it did not fill the screen because I had cropped the image to a smaller size with the intention of adding a 'mask' as a frame so that everyone could see it (using the Barry Beckham technique). I guess what I am really trying to determine is how best to produce a PTE Slide Show on my monitor so that I can retain the best quality I can and still display at FULL SCREEN.

Seems that I am getting myself a little confused along the way.

Ron

[Barry Beckham]

This very close to the issue I raised in the other forum.

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8329

Ron is not a beginner at creating slide shows and I suspect many others are confused about how their slide show may be seen by others. The truth is we don't really know and perhaps this test should contain the same image all through. So, no only could the lines tell us what is being lost in the image, but the picture would tell us what quality implications there were in each format.

In theory the image should look best when the resolution of the image matches the monitor it's being played on. In effect that would become the control. So each of us woud have a different control slide in this test, depending on the resolution we are running.

[davegee]

You also have to take the ASPECT RATIO of your show into account.

Let's say that you are producing a 16:9 show. Then your images have to be at least 1080 high because it is possible that someone out there is going to view your work on a 1920x1080 monitor.

If the same show is viewed on any other monitor UP TO 1920x1080 your are covered (I think?) because then the interpolation will be downwards and NOT upwards.

Now, someone tell me that they have a monitor greater than 1920x1080.....

....and why.

DaveG

[Lin Evans]

Hi David,

Yes - many have monitors with greater than two megapixel resolution. A number of my clients have nine megapixel monitors which display 3840x2400 in 2D mode. It's quite common today to find 2560x1600 in use. 1920x1200 is also quite common.

Best regards,

Lin

You also have to take the ASPECT RATIO of your show into account.

Let's say that you are producing a 16:9 show. Then your images have to be at least 1080 high because it is possible that someone out there is going to view your work on a 1920x1080 monitor.

If the same show is viewed on any other monitor UP TO 1920x1080 your are covered (I think?) because then the interpolation will be downwards and NOT upwards.

Now, someone tell me that they have a monitor greater than 1920x1080.....

....and why.

DaveG

[davegee]

So, there it is Ron.

You have to cater for Lin's clients also.

Perhaps it would be interesting to know how many forum members (AV / DAPP / DAVP enthusiasts) have monitors greater than 1920x1080?

DaveG

[Lin Evans]

I don't think it's necessary to create a single slideshow for all possible users. You could do it like Barry does and make a couple popular sizes or make one high resolution and one medium resolution version. I usually make my shows for web posting at 1024x683 or so and they look fine on the majority of monitors. For clients I make shows specific to their own requirements which in some cases are full resolution from one of my higher resolution cameras and for most I make 4 megapixel shows which satisfy both the higher common resolutions as well as lower resolutions.

The issue of aspect ratio is more differentiating I believe than resolution. Even my 1024x682 shows look fine to me on 1080p monitors. Yes there is some black on the sides because I rarely crop to 16x9 but the output still looks very crisp. Even conventional DVD (PAL or NTSC) dosn't look bad on these monitors to me. I think we tend to try too hard to cover every possible base when we should be worrying more about content and less about the technicals.

As a business, we have multiple resolution monitors ranging from 2560x1600 to 800x600 including several multi-sync models. I had a Viewsonic VP2290b (3480x2400) but I let one of my clients talk me out of it. I think in the future there will be many 30" 2560x1600 (4 megapixel) displays sold as prices come down. Right now they are becoming quite popular with the photography and digital graphics crowd and will begin to make inroads into mainstream use as prices drop in the next year. They are already quite popular with the military and this will probably serve to lower prices soon.

Best regards,

Lin

So, there it is Ron.

You have to cater for Lin's clients also.

Perhaps it would be interesting to know how many forum members (AV / DAPP / DAVP enthusiasts) have monitors greater than 1920x1080?

DaveG