Aspect Ratio

[jevans]

I posted a request in the "Ideas for new versions" forum some considerable time ago about the need to be able to change the default setting of PTE from "fit to slide" to "cover slide". There were no responses to this post and I wonder whether anyone else has the same problem as myself and if so, what do they do.

The issue is this :

My Nikon D80 provides a 3872 x 2592 image - aspect ratio 3:2

My monitor is 1280 x 1024 - aspect ratio 5:4

My projector is 1024 x 768 - aspect ratio 4:3

I auto-resize the original images to 1530 x 1024 to maintain their original aspect ratio and then use"cover slide" in PTE so that the image fills the full height of my monitor. However I have to set each slide to "cover slide" manually as it is not possible to change the default setting of PTE from "fit to slide". Al Robinson's "PTE Adjuster" used to be able to make a global change, but the latest version seems to have dropped this function.

Of course, using this process, I lose some of both sides of the original image. But I prefer to do this rather than have the image showing on my monitor with a black line at the top and bottom of the screen. This is what happens if you keep the original image's aspect ratio and use "fit to slide".

Another possible tack is to crop each image. But this is much more time consuming than just resizing images using a batch process.

I would be interested in any views on this topic.

Jeff

[fh1805]

Hi Jeff,

I'm in a similar position to yourself. My Nikon D70 is 3:2 (3008x2000), my desktop system's monitor is 5:4 (1280x1024) and my digital projector is 1024x768. Just to add further complication, the laptop that I use to drive the projector is 16:9 (not sure what it's pixel x pixel size is).

The main purpose of my sequences (other than satisfying my desire to be creative) is to be projected to audiences. Therefore I build them to 4:3 aspect ratio at 1024x768 (i.e. to meet the needs of the projector) and use the default of "Fit to screen".

I get around the mismatch between the D70's 3:2 aspect ratio and the projector's 4:3 by presenting my images either against a background or overlaid with a "windowed mount". The background and the mount are built to 1024x768. The 3:2 image is usually presented at 85%.

If you can get along to Snods Edge in October you can see some of my work for yourself and ask me all the questions that you want!

[davegee]

Jeff,

If you are resizing to 1024 high then why not use "Disable Scaling...." - that gives you the cover slide that you require and sets Original in O&A/Common.

Original, in your case, is the same thing as cover slide.

DaveG

[Barry Beckham]

Jeff

I think it would be a good idea to be able to set those Cover, fit to slide options as user defaults, but I have also asked for a name change of those options too. They should be called cover screen and fit to screen not fit to slide.

I can't really see the point in you retaining format only to let the software throw it away for you, it makes no sense.

Maintain the format by all means, but arrange a size that gives you a border all the way round, not just top and bottom. That is far more attractive to the eye, rather like how we would present a print. Then select the disable scaling option and your home and dry.

You can even create your own Png frame to pop over the top of the images for a real classy appearance.

[jevans]

Thanks guys for your helpful suggestions.

Peter : Hope to see you at Snods Edge but it depends on the date whether I will get there as we are at a National Print final at Connahs Quay on 25th which is usually the date for Snods Edge.

Barry/Peter : Using a mask is a good idea which I had not thought of and this would solve the problem. However asthetically I am not a great lover of masks unless they relate to the images being shown. Of course this is obviously just a personal view. Sometimes a mask definately enhances an image but I am not sure I would want to use one permanently. At our member's nights there is often a mix of AVs with and without masks or borders and I prefer shows without. However thanks for the idea which I might use sometimes.

DaveG : Never thought of disabling the scaling Dave and this is a very simple solution. Cannot see that this has any downside, despite Igor's note that this is not recommended.

Peter : Interested in your comment about making shows for projection based on 1024 x 768 images. Since getting my Nikon D80, I now just resize to 1530 x 1024, create a PTE show on my 1280 x 1024 monitor and then just letting the projector (1024 x 768) do a final rescale. This seems to work fine and I have not seen any significant deterioration in the projected images. Obviously if I am submitting images for a digital image competition, then I crop to 1024 x 768 and observe the file size limitations as specified in the competition rules.

Regards

Jeff

[Bernpenguin]

It's quite easy, just resize your images 1024x768 or take a 1024x765 bite out of an image cheers Pen

[jevans]

It's quite easy, just resize your images 1024x768 or take a 1024x765 bite out of an image cheers Pen

Yes but that means an operation on each individual image, whereas if you resize, you can use a batch process which is much quicker and easier.

[fh1805]

Jeff,

re: Snods Edge - I'm currently booked to appear on 18th October.

[jevans]

Jeff,

If you are resizing to 1024 high then why not use "Disable Scaling...." - that gives you the cover slide that you require and sets Original in O&A/Common.

Original, in your case, is the same thing as cover slide.

DaveG

Dave,

Your idea was great as long as I only run the show on my monitor. However I took a show to the club this evening and all the images were oversise. This is obviously why Igor puts a note against "disable scaling" to indicate that it is not recommended. When you have an image which is set to 5:4 and then run the exe file on a projector set to 4:3, then with scaling disabled, you get too large an image. So it's back to the drawing board. I shall have another go at getting Igor to include the ability to set all the slides to a particular scaling in one go.

[Alan Lyons]

Hi All,

The thing with resizing for projection is that if you don't match the projector res 1:1 or 2:1 etc then you will loose pixels which will be randomly rejected by the projector. What I do is to set my with to 1024 and allow the hight to be calculated by "Preserve Aspect Ratio". This means that your image will fit the with of the screen and black will be projected where there are no pixels.

If you do this with 3:2 images you get a more "cinematic" or "35mm Slide" aspect which I feel looks better on a large screen than the nearly square 4:3 Aspect.

As a final fix for projection I reduce the Quality slider in photoshop to 8 for each image ( this can be done in actions) this gives you an image which is between 300 and 150 kb. Ideal for projection on cinema size screens but useless for printing.

Alan

[Davidh12]

Jeff

What is Snod's edge? Feel I'm missing out on something.

David

[Ken Cox]

http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/ft.dll/p...amp;sent=stored

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=Sn...earch&meta=

ken

[xahu34]

...then you will loose pixels which will be randomly rejected by the projector...

In my understanding, a digital projector does not reject pixels. The projector typically receives a video signal with appropriate resolution and refresh rate and projects it.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Alan Lyons]

Sorry, I'm not a techie but the idea is that if you send an image which for argument sake is 1234 X 567 pixels then in order for the projector to show the image at 1024 x 768 some trade off is done somewhere? Square pegs in round holes if you see what I mean. Where as the 1024 x 682 of a 3:2 in lay mans terms "leaves some of the lights off"

I would opt for "best fit " every time,

Alan

[jevans]

Jeff

What is Snod's edge? Feel I'm missing out on something.

David

David,

Snodge's Edge is a location in Durham which hosts the RPS Northern AV Group's meetings twice a year, generally October and March. There are presentations of PTE showsby members and generally two or more excellent speakers. If you are near enough to come it is a very good day out. Here is the flyer for the meeting which was held in October last year.

Ian__s_flyer_v2.doc

[Davidh12]

Thanks Jeff

That's what I was after .Post or send send me a copy when you get one for this year and I'll try and make it.

Thanks Ken

I'm much more informed about Snods Edge.

David

Sorry to hijack the interesting post on aspect ratio. I haven't really solved the problem myself. My work so far has been 1024 x768

but having recently aquired a bigger screen set up for 1680 x1050 it's becoming an issue. Should have really gone for full HD I suppose but not really set up for that yet.

[Alan Lyons]

David,

I asume when you say a bigger screen you are refering to a screen "display" size for your laptop/PC and not a bigger projection screen. If this is the case then your 1024x768 should stretch to fit the screen. You will see some stretching paticuarlly in text and such. I would solve your problem by sizing to 2048x1356 as this is twice what you need for current projectors and will match perfectly the higher res projectors now comming on screen. On your PC your images will fit on screen and will be compressed by about 20%.

I can assure you that 1024x768 images will project perfectly on large screens.

If you want to see this in action you could visit Jeff and co at Snods End, or the RPS International in Cirencester this September. I've already booked my seat and bought the popcorn!

Alan

[Barry Beckham]

Simple answer and one I have been going on about for eons

Don't let PTE decide on the size of your image, you decide via choices in the software such as Original mode or Disable scaling of main images.

If your animating a show create a PNG frame to cover up any visible movement, if not, your done.

The projector will project what you created.

[Davidh12]

Andy

Your correct I meant bigger display on desktop (20 inch) and increased pixel count. I was playing some shows I had created 1024 x 768 and it does stretch but the pixilisation, if that's the right term, was noticable.

As you say of course it is not noticable on the projector which is 1024 x 768 no matter how big the image is displayed. Next show I do I shall try 2048 x 1356 and see how it turns out, thanks.

Barry

It would be nice to leave the photos at full resolution but computer resources and all that mean I have to cut down the size. it should play well on my machine but if I send them to friends with less powerful ones then it's a problem. I have one of your DVD's on picture borders I must revisit it (I can't remember if it was a png or not) that' an idea thanks.

David

[xahu34]

...It would be nice to leave the photos at full resolution but computer resources and all that mean I have to cut down the size. it should play well on my machine but if I send them to friends with less powerful ones then it's a problem...

I made a suggestion in this direction, see here. (In my former post I used the word "beamer" which should be replaced by "projector".)

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[davegee]

Hi Jeff,

Sorry for the delay in replying - I have been walking my little legs off in Austria for two weeks.

I went back to the beginning and read your original post again.

The Disable Scaling would work if you resized to 1152x768 (3:2 aspect ratio) to suit the height of your projector (losing a little on each side as you suggested).

However on your 1280x1024 monitor you would have a black "line" all around - you can't have it both ways.

By the way, the correct settings would be Full-Screen and 4:3 (NOT 5:4) assuming that projection is the ultimate objective?

DaveG