Text animations

[stardealer]

In many situation I miss text animation effects in my slideshows.

In P2E you are restricted to pan/zoom/rotate and opacity.

I would like to have text effects as in competitor products like e.g. proshow.

I know that it is a big deal to implement a text animation engine in P2E and programmers ressources are restricted, but I think it becomes a must have feature in the near future

So what do other members think about it?

Regards, Frank

[fh1805]

Frank,

I have no experience of Proshow. Could you elaborate on what you mean by text animation, please?

[stardealer]

I mean something like when text appears character by character or other character based animations. The best way to understand what I mean is to look at other text animation tools, like http://www.jumpeyecomponents.com/ TXeff, a tool for text animation in flash.

I think we don't need such a powerfull set of different animations, but some basic ones would be fine.

Regards, Frank

[Lin Evans]

Hi Frank,

There is no specific text animation mode in PTE but you certainly can do text animation - some in ways which are not possible with Proshow, etc. Let me know what it is that you would like to see and I'll provide you a sample.

P.S.

Here's a little "taste" - LOL

http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sample/nutella.zip

Best regards,

Lin

I mean something like when text appears character by character or other character based animations. The best way to understand what I mean is to look at other text animation tools, like http://www.jumpeyecomponents.com/ TXeff, a tool for text animation in flash.

I think we don't need such a powerfull set of different animations, but some basic ones would be fine.

Regards, Frank

[smithrg]

Hi Frank,

There is no specific text animation mode in PTE but you certainly can do text animation - some in ways which are not possible with Proshow, etc. Let me know what it is that you would like to see and I'll provide you a sample.

P.S.

Here's a little "taste" - LOL

http://www.learntomakeslideshows.net/sample/nutella.zip

Best regards,

Lin

That's amazing, Lin.

Gayland

[Lin Evans]

Hi Gayland,

PTE is a "very" versatile program. Frank is really talking about "canned" text effects but may not realize that about any text effect which can be done in Proshow Gold or Proshow Producer with the canned text effect engine can be duplicated in PTE and "many" effects can be done with PTE which "can't" be done with Producer or Gold.

Is it as easy? No, of course not. A templated text effect such as "exploding" text or the appearance of a single letter at a time, etc., can be easily accomplished with a text effect engine. The "best" text effect engine is in an inexpensive program called "Media@Show" by a former US company now owned by a Taiwanese company called Cyberlink. The program has no pan, zoom, rotate or any of the extremely powerful features of PTE but the original developers came from the video industry and they have spinning, twirling, tumbeling, rotating, bending, you name it text effects second to none. Having an engine amenable to video allows lots of text effects not easily accomplished in a program like PTE, but there are "MAJOR" trade offs. The primary trade off is the one which sets PTE apart from "all" the competiton - IMAGE QUALITY! Neither ProShow Gold, nor Proshow Producer, nor mObjects, nor Wings Platinum, nor Adobe Encore or "ANY" other presentation slideshow program can match PTE's image quality. Why? They don't have hardware rendering which allows the creation of an executable slideshow second to none, period. Some of these other programs (Wings Platinum, mObjects, Encore, etc.) can produce incredibly good video just as PTE, but they can't produce the smooth, fast, hardware rendered quality of PTE in an executable slideshow.

To have this capability we give up certain things such as the easy implementation of video and all that entails. Video and hardware rendering are a difficult mix - this is precisely why Proshow Gold and Produce do not have hardware rendering. Many of their users are hooked on video. There is a place for video in slideshows but it doesn't mix with ultimate quality so a decesion must be made by the user to use the proper tool for the task at hand.

So to get these fantastic text effects with PTE we must manually program which takes much more time to do, but it also gives us the ability to do things with text which none of these other programs can equal. By controlling text as an object we can apply things like parent/child relationship (something the competition can't do) and off-center rotation (another thing the competition can't do) and with this combination we can accomplish animations which are virtually impossible to do with other presentation slideshow software.

So for quick, fancy text effects, use a software which allows video and you can have fantastic animated text effects. But if you want quality, use PTE. There is a misconception - such as Frank has, that having these text effects is as easy as having a text engine. It's not. And the reason PTE does't have one is not that it's "expensive" or "lack of resources" - it's simply not something amenable to a slideshow engine which doesn't directly support video. With a video engine there are virtually dozens of programs you can use to have fantastic animated text, but then you don't have that incredible image quality we have with PTE. So give up quality and have video or give up video and have quality. At the present state of art in the graphics industry it's that simple.

Best regards,

Lin

That's amazing, Lin.

Gayland

[stardealer]

Hi Lin,

good demonstration of PTE capabilities.

Don't want to offend you, but the nuttella example doesn't look as sophisticated as text animations I have seen in Flash or other programs. I think you used many different objects with parent/child, pan and rotate to accomplish this task and in my point of view it is to much effort for such text animations.

Yes you can do many things in PTE and it is fun to play around with the possibilities and create something new and brake the limits. But in normal slideshows I only apply effects which are not to complicated to use because of two reasons.

1. it is a matter of time

2. I don't want to spend half a hour with creating a slide, start the preview and decide - wrong animation sequence or another arrangement would be better

I want easy to use functions, not expert tasks.

I totally agree that PTE delivers best imagequality among the competitors when viewing EXE-files.

Can't say much to your technical arguments.

Regards, Frank

[xahu34]

Neither ... mObjects, nor Wings Platinum, ... have hardware rendering ...

Sorry,

I am a PTE enthusiast within a world of m.objects users. But this statement is definitely wrong. m.objects has been using HW rendering for more than 4 years (for particular reasons in combination with simulated full screen mode), and it produces fine executable slideshows. Anyway: I think it is wonderful to have an affordable tool like PTE playing in the league of highly expensive programs like Wings and m.objects. There are other tools using HW rendering: ScreenAV, Aquasoft (version 6).

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Lin Evans]

Hi Frank,

What does "sophisticated" mean? LOL - no offense taken.

As I said, "any" text animation which can be done using video text can be duplicated using PTE along with animations which "can-not" be done with currently available video text engines, and yes, of course it's not nearly as easy as typing in your text and choosing an effect from a list.

But the problem remains. One must choose the appropriate tool for the task at hand. PTE doesn't use video for the reasons I've stipulated so one has a choice of video or image quality.

I use and have used the competing software products (all of the popular ones including some which cost me over $1500) so I'm completely familiar with their capabilities and limitations. Being able to drop in a video clip (which is essentially what these text effects consist of) is very convenient if you need or want these fancy text effects for your show.

The point is that we all have different needs and different software programs have different strengths and weaknesses. Most who use PTE don't want to sacrifice image quality and versatility for "flash" (pun intended). There are already plenty of software programs available which do these kind of things. Making PTE into yet another of these software rendered programs would, in my opinion, be a giant step backward.

If it were easy to implement video in PTE without loosing what we have then yes, that would be wonderful, but in fact it's not or the developers would already have done it. They haven't done it for the same reasons the competition have not developed hardware rendering: the two are not compatible from either an aesthetic or technical perspective.

I believe your original argument that PTE "must have" this feature in the "near future" simply does not obtain. It's horses for courses here. PTE in the opinion of the majority here is the finest presentation slideshow software available. That's certainly my opinion. It's the choice of the majority who do AV competitions and its popularity growth is phenomenal. I believe the reason is that it relatively bug-free, produces the highest quality imagery possible and provides the most versatility in image manipulation. PTE has "always" been a "nuts and bolts" type software which means that you "can" do things with it which you can't do with competiting products. With that extreme versatility comes limitations in "convenience". Yes, it's very convenient to drop in a video clip to facilitate text effects or choose from a convenient library of Flash animations but while these type things have a definite place in "some" presentation slideshows they are outside the core competency and direction of PTE and not a necessary component.

There are things easily done with PTE which simply can't be done with the competition and things easily done with the competition which can't be done with PTE. As one can't make a sports car of a Hummer or an off-road trail blazer of a Ferrari, there is a place for each. If one wishes to race on a track or carve through mountain road "S" curves then buy a sports car. If one wishes to crash through the jungle, climb rocks or slosh through mud, buy an off-road vehicle. Don't try to add another live axle to your Ferrari and beef up the suspension and body to make it into a poorly designed Hummer or replace the heavy-duty suspension and all-wheel drive and bullet-proof body of your Hummer to try to make it into a poorly designed sports car. They are fine the way they are. Adding cup-holders is one thing, trying to redesign to fit inappropriate use is yet another.

If you want video clip drop-in then use Proshow Gold, Producer, Media@Show, Vegas Video, Wings Platinum, mObjects or other presentation slideshow product amenable to this. If you want the ultimate in image quality and a nuts-and-bolts low level power to create then use PTE. Like the Hummer and Ferrari, they share some features but differ in significant ways.

As you admit, PTE has unparalled image quality in an executable slideshow. Keep in mind that PTE stands for Pictures to Executable not pictures to video. The executable file has "always" been the core competency of this product from its inception. Perhaps in the future when commonly available video improves to the level of the executable (it has a long way to go yet) it may be possible to add video to PTE without diluting the quality but there are major technical barriers right now. Until then when you need or want video type text effects either spend the time to create them with the tools available in PTE or use a different product.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

good demonstration of PTE capabilities.

Don't want to offend you, but the nuttella example doesn't look as sophisticated as text animations I have seen in Flash or other programs. I think you used many different objects with parent/child, pan and rotate to accomplish this task and in my point of view it is to much effort for such text animations.

Yes you can do many things in PTE and it is fun to play around with the possibilities and create something new and brake the limits. But in normal slideshows I only apply effects which are not to complicated to use because of two reasons.

1. it is a matter of time

2. I don't want to spend half a hour with creating a slide, start the preview and decide - wrong animation sequence or another arrangement would be better

I want easy to use functions, not expert tasks.

I totally agree that PTE delivers best imagequality among the competitors when viewing EXE-files.

Can't say much to your technical arguments.

Regards, Frank

[Lin Evans]

Hi Xaver,

I use and have used m.Objects, Wings Platinum, Vegas Video, Adobe Encore and a half-dozen other video and presentation slideshow products as well. I know nothing of what AquaSoft has done with their new version. If they are using hardware rendering that's great. We'll see how it works out with DiaMaster and whether they have cured their audio synchronization issues.

ScreenAV, is a totally different product with a different emphasis primarily for projected images. m.Objects has had more than its share of issues with the "simulated" full screen mode which has not near the image quality in my experience of PTE. Video simply can not match executable output for image quallity. I would assume you agree or your would be using m.Objects instead of PTE. The hardware rendering engine of PTE in my opinion is second to none and unlike any other in present use and you know exactly what I mean.

I maintain my opinion that "none" of the other presentation slideshow programs matches the image quality of PTE. I will have to see someone else create a slideshow with equal output quality because I can't do it using the above products. I have not seen a slideshow from version 6 of AquaSoft so I can't comment on it as a comparison. Have you used version 6?

Best regards,

Lin

Sorry,

I am a PTE enthusiast within a world of m.objects users. But this statement is definitely wrong. m.objects has been using HW rendering for more than 4 years (for particular reasons in combination with simulated full screen mode), and it produces fine executable slideshows. Anyway: I think it is wonderful to have an affordable tool like PTE playing in the league of highly expensive programs like Wings and m.objects. There are other tools using HW rendering: ScreenAV, Aquasoft (version 6).

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[xahu34]

I have not seen a slideshow from version 6 of AquaSoft so I can't comment on it as a comparison. Have you used version 6?

Hi Lin,

I only used version 5 of DiaSow XP from AquaSoft without being satisfied. In my opinion, this company hesitated to long with the step to use DirectX. I gave it up to use this product about a year ago. Version 6 is said to have smooth animations, but the product, although released, seems to have the characteristic of a beta version with lots of bugs. It still will take several months until it might become a recommendation. As I am quite happy with PTE I do not have any motivation to return to AquaSoft.

A problem with PTE in Germany is the fact that it is "too much English". Many amateur photographers belong to the elder generation, and they prefer a German product with a German documentation, and a German forum etc. Maybe that AquaSoft will raise its market share in the German language area, and gain customers from Wings or m.objects. Let's see.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Lin Evans]

Hi Xaver,

I can certainly understand the difficulty of language barriers and how it relates to forums. I would be at a loss, for example, to carry on an intelligent conversation in German or Russian on a forum although I could do this in Spanish, Portuguese or Italian. It seems the French have solved the language issues by creating PTE forums in French. Perhaps in the future there can be forums in German as well, especially for the older generation who had not the advantage of learning an alternate language. I was surprised when I visited Germany on several recent occasions at how now, compared to my visits in the 50's, many younger people have an excellent command of English which seems to have become more or less the international business language.

This is one reason we really need to provide the User's Guide in many languages. Hopefully, in the future Wnsoft can find sufficient resources or volunteers to translate into not only Russian and English as today but also into French, German, Italian, Spanish and perhaps more of the Eastern European languages as well.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

I only used version 5 of DiaSow XP from AquaSoft without being satisfied. In my opinion, this company hesitated to long with the step to use DirectX. I gave it up to use this product about a year ago. Version 6 is said to have smooth animations, but the product, although released, seems to have the characteristic of a beta version with lots of bugs. It still will take several months until it might become a recommendation. As I am quite happy with PTE I do not have any motivation to return to AquaSoft.

A problem with PTE in Germany is the fact that it is "too much English". Many amateur photographers belong to the elder generation, and they prefer a German product with a German documentation, and a German forum etc. Maybe that AquaSoft will raise its market share in the German language area, and gain customers from Wings or m.objects. Let's see.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[stardealer]

Hi Lin,

thanks for your detailed explanations. My knowledge isn't sufficient enough to understand all aspects of the technical explanations you wrote.

If it were easy to implement video in PTE without loosing what we have then yes, that would be wonderful, but in fact it's not or the developers would already have done it. They haven't done it for the same reasons the competition have not developed hardware rendering: the two are not compatible from either an aesthetic or technical perspective.

As I know from my daily work as a developer of business applications there are many situations when you think that a requested functionality needs a big effort to be implemented. You treat the request exactly as it has been asked and implementation would be a pain. But many times only a small variation of the request is needed to get to the point that it is easy to implement and also satisfies the customer.

Maybe there are DirectX-functions which can easy be used to accomplish some text animations but not video.

I believe your original argument that PTE "must have" this feature in the "near future" simply does not obtain. It's horses for courses here. PTE in the opinion of the majority here is the finest presentation slideshow software available. That's certainly my opinion. It's the choice of the majority who do AV competitions and its popularity growth is phenomenal. I believe the reason is that it relatively bug-free, produces the highest quality imagery possible and provides the most versatility in image manipulation. PTE has "always" been a "nuts and bolts" type software which means that you "can" do things with it which you can't do with competiting products. With that extreme versatility comes limitations in "convenience". Yes, it's very convenient to drop in a video clip to facilitate text effects or choose from a convenient library of Flash animations but while these type things have a definite place in "some" presentation slideshows they are outside the core competency and direction of PTE and not a necessary component.

OK if PTE is a niche product for AV enthusiasts and they don't want such things in the near future there simply is no "must have". Again, I decided to buy PTE because of image quality and I'm pleased with the results.

@Xaver

I tried Aquasoft 6. Beside that it has many bugs the smoothness of animations isn't comparable to PTE although I have sufficent hardware ressources with a new graphics card (Nvidia 9600GT).

Regards, Frank

[Lin Evans]

Hi Frank,

Perhaps in a future release there may some programmed text effects possible and as video technology improves there may be a future possibility of directly including high resolution video clips in a PTE show.

I don't think its a matter of users not "wanting" additional features such as fancy text effects, video clips and such, it's more a matter of technical expediency at this stage. Where there must be a "choice" between image quality versus features as at present, image quality will always trump features for PTE users. It's the image and presentation quality (smoothness, etc.) which attracts users to PTE and nothing must be compromised in that area.

Best regards,

Lin

Hi Lin,

thanks for your detailed explanations. My knowledge isn't sufficient enough to understand all aspects of the technical explanations you wrote.

As I know from my daily work as a developer of business applications there are many situations when you think that a requested functionality needs a big effort to be implemented. You treat the request exactly as it has been asked and implementation would be a pain. But many times only a small variation of the request is needed to get to the point that it is easy to implement and also satisfies the customer.

Maybe there are DirectX-functions which can easy be used to accomplish some text animations but not video.

OK if PTE is a niche product for AV enthusiasts and they don't want such things in the near future there simply is no "must have". Again, I decided to buy PTE because of image quality and I'm pleased with the results.