Questions on next version 5.6

[Igor]

Patrick,

If it's difficult to manage complex Pan/Zoom effects then just no need to use it, like this feature was not presented in v4.49.

On my opinion, version 5.5 is simplicity of v4.49 + advanced features (objects and animations).

Additionally v5.5 more simple than v4.49 in the next points:

- Mini-player in the main window with ability to see any part of a slideshow and quickly play it.

- Integrated timeline to the main window.

- Easy way to burn slideshows on DVD video disc.

All it helps beginners.

Next version will allow easily publish slideshows on Youtube and export video for iPhone/iPod.

I hope we've built enough reliable version 5.5 and I don't receive bug-reports about crashes of created slideshows.

In this topic we discuss one particular professional feature which is interested for advanced users only.

[dadou]

Igor Just my account, as a basic user, with no special knowledge about computers...

Since 2002, I have used PTE ; like d67, quite satisfied with the practical side ; trouble came with object stability, depending on addressee's screen parameters ; problem solved with JPD's use of transparent Gif.

Lately, I have begun to use V5 ; following the « cale » technique recommended by JPD, objects are stable whatever screen parameters of the final addressee. Which is obviously everyone's demand, as expressed by d67.

It is unimaginable to ask the viewer to modify his/her screen parameters following the author !! In case I see this demand, I move to something else, considering that the author has little consideration for the viewer... and some technical uncertainties.

One should be able to integrate the « cale » technique into PTE, at least I imagine so.

Igor, please take five minutes and you will see that it works ; too many complexities puts off new users, and they will produce the future experts... Too elitist software will deprive PTE of new users... I therefore advise my friends to begin with V4,49 ; they are no experienced computer users and most of them are far from their young time, but they have time to use PTE. !!!

If they are pleased with the result, they are quite willing to evoluate, or they go on with V4.

I do not use video or you tube ; HD tv is in my opinion ideal for slide show ; my dearest wish is that PTE remains a slide show software !

[xahu34]

...It is unimaginable to ask the viewer to modify his/her screen parameters following the author !! In case I see this demand, I move to something else, considering that the author has little consideration for the viewer... and some technical uncertainties....

I agree! But the new feature as proposed by Igor just helps the author to program the show using a fixed resolution, but frees the viewer from changing the setting of his monitor.

I would like to have this feature, and even better if it could be combined with the proposal of Barry Beckham on controlling the border (see post no. 9 above).

Best regards,

Xaver H.

Munich

[Igor]

I feel probably there is some misunderstanding of the topic's question.

By default settings in current v5.5, in next v5.6 and in all future versions, all objects have relative size in percents. And slide correctly shows at any screen resolution. No need to change display resolution.

For example if we use 1024 x 768 image and display is 1024x768 - image shows pixel in pixel without resizing/resamping.

But if display 1280x960 image will be scaled to 1280x960 and some authors don't like our resizing algorithm (of course Photoshop does better resizing taking much longer time). This situation similar with watching DVD - video file has fixed size of picture and player scales picture to entire display.

Because of this some authors use special "Original size" mode of objects to set absolute/fixed size of an image in pixels. This image never will be resized/resampled.

I just suggested to replace "Original size" mode to another more better option on my opinion.

However I still recommend to use default settings of images with auto scaling of images. This "Original size" mode and the new suggested replacement intended for advanced users who want to reach some special result.

[Bernpenguin]

The trouble is pte is starting to cater for all those out there who are just testing and experimenting

instead of making AV,s. Making DVD,s is the last thing i want, though i do occasionaly write one but to make the program complicated just for that is a bridge too far. Pen

[Lin Evans]

Hi Patrick,

We would all love it if life were so simple (what you see is what you get) but, unfortunately, it is not. There is no way to have the features which the market demands and still make everything incredibly simple.

What you seem to want is for PTE to remain as it has been for years rather than change. If Version 4.8, etc., is comfortable for you then there is no reason to use anything else. Others may enjoy the new capabilities, but to use some of these new features requires additional hardware resources. Other software programs also may be designed to use these resources and there are virtually unlimited software programs all sharing a common resource.

When you go to the Cinema and see a new movie with special effects this did not happen without major changes in technology. Perhaps you do not care for special effects and are quite content with motion pictures as they were made in the 1950's. If so that is fine - everyone has a right to their own preferences - this is neither good nor bad - those are subjective terms.

"Choice" is good. This is my subjective opinion. With PTE you have "choice". You "can" have everything as it was with older versions if you do not "choose" to avail yourself of the new features, or you can have the new features and learn to use them.

You don't "have" to think about "child objects" or make esoteric calculations. You can leave things as in the default and let someone else make the choices for you if that's what you prefer, or use older versions of PTE where there are fewer choices. These new features are designed to give the author more control over the finished product. For some this is appreciated and others seem to prefer things to be comfortable. Such is human nature.

What this thread is really about was really quite simple but we are straying far away from discussing the original question and using the opportunity as a "soap box" platform to address our preferences about everything "except" Igor's question.

The place for these discussions is the thread "Ideas and Suggestions" not here where we were simply asked to discuss a single feature change.

So what do you think about replacing "Original Size" with Igor's suggested change to specifying fixed pixel dimensions?

Best regards,

Lin

The best software is the one which is WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get).

That is not the case of PTE V5 where you have to think about child objects, wedges, divide width by Pi or make other esoteric calculations, don't forget to keep length in a pair number, deactivate or activate material acceleration and don't forget to check or uncheck some choice boxes, count pixels, make endless trials on multiple configurations and so on ....

Using basic and very simple transitions don't discharge of making some of theses manipulations and even on up to date PCs, you are not sure your slideshow will behave as you created it ... apart asking the end user to change screen resolution, shut down all background running programs, deactivate antivirus, temporarily stop the firewall, etc, etc.... or, when nothing works, just denying the end user's complaints !

Patrick

[d67]

When you go to the Cinema and see a new movie with special effects this did not happen without major changes in technology. Perhaps you do not care for special effects and are quite content with motion pictures as they were made in the 1950's. If so that is fine - everyone has a right to their own preferences - this is neither good nor bad - those are subjective terms.

Hi Lin

Why be so needlessly ironic ? As you, I live with my time and it's changes.

PTE was a tremendous change in slideshow software at it's arrival as it was user friendly, very easy to use, cheap and very "light" weighting.

Many amateur photographers where pleased to have such a simple tool and many of us started again to take photos.

PTE V5 is no more user friendly, no more easy to use, EVEN if you just want to use basic features.

You can deny it... that is your problem, but in the facts, it is so for many of us.

When I make a slideshow with PTE V4, it runs immediatly without problem. When I make exactly the same with V5 (not just taking V4 project) I have to make many trials and little developpments so that it runs in the same way (needlessly time consuming).

In the same way, as Dadou said just before, concerning me, I am more radical and I don't never more advertise PTE for my friends as I have no time to waist to make hotline (they are from far not familiar with english or forums, even if they are french !).

I also not recommend PTE V4 as I know they will not understand why I recommend an older version !

To say truth, I just recommend Flash Slide Show Maker (free for personnal use) which is far from the possibilities of PTE but has the original simplicity of use of PTE V4 !!!!

The place for these discussions is the thread "Ideas and Suggestions" not here where we were simply asked to discuss a single feature change.

... yes but Igor's abstruse remark and the obscur responses, for most of us, was the starting point !

I have to stop here as, as you are justifiably thinking about me, I live in the 19th century and my electricity supply becomes weaker and weaker

Patr.......

[Conflow]

Igor and all

In my previous Post #14 I had written...

"For some time now I had concern's that PTE was becoming "All-things to All men" ~ and was starting to loose

its operational effectiveness and usage simplicity which are the bedrock of all good software Programs"...

It appears that I am not the only 'User' with these concerns ~ and it seems that Igor and his Team are also aware

that PTE is fast becoming a victim of the vast explosion in "New-Media Presentation Formats" which are giving the

Team major headaches, this despite the additional demands of a select minority of User's who want more functions

embedded in the Pte 5xxx Program. This fragmentation of interests is NOT good for this excellent Program because

to the Novice (potential-purchaser) the Program is too complex in its current operational format.

May I suggest an 'old' Microsoft ploy which WILL serve the interests of the 'Novice User' and the 'Pro User'alike.

There may be other variations of this idea which use's 2 Buttons to set-up choice of Program Applications and

that process alone will not frighten the Novice nor the Semi-Pro user's.

I hope some consideration is given to this idea without it becoming a subject of procrastination...

Regards,

Brian.Conflow.

See Attachment for proposal details:-

[xahu34]

... No need to change display resolution....

Igor,

the problem of changing display resolution occurs (for example) in cases where some authors like Barry Beckham publish shows which run in a window of a fixed size (e.g. 1280x1024) and some people do not like to change their monitor settings and some even show angry reactions.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[dadou]

Brian, I think that you had a very good idea !!!

You see very well what happens and said it better that I am abble to do it !

Thank you !

[JPD]

I just suggested to replace "Original size" mode to another more better option on my opinion.

However I still recommend to use default settings of images with auto scaling of images. This "Original size" mode and the new suggested replacement intended for advanced users who want to reach some special result.

It seems my explanations aren't understand. With the technic I use today, there is one object in each slide which can be "Fit to format" or "Original mode", with this method, all the other objects are in original mode (for the nominal format). There are few examples where Fit to format or Cover format can be use for child objects, but this examples aren't absolutely necessary in normal or complex slideshow, so it would be possible to have all objects in original mode, it would only necessary to give the nominal format in pixels and choice an option between four as I wrote, for all the slides, it wouldn't be usefull to have the option "Fit to format", "Cover format" and "Original mode" for each objects, the menu would be simplest, the PTE file lighter and probably the calcultions less difficult.

Igor, it's very difficult for me to be understood, so if it's not enough clear ask me questions, but please, try to understand what I explain, I really think it's the easiest and the best way.

the problem of changing display resolution occurs (for example) in cases where some authors like Barry Beckham publish shows which run in a window of a fixed size (e.g. 1280x1024) and some people do not like to change their monitor settings and some even show angry reactions.

It would be easy to have an option as I explained in my first topic, there was the same problem with V4, we could choice to be in original mode but the pictures was fit to screen if the screen definition wasn't enough.

[Conflow]

Jean-Pierre,

I understand what you are saying, and I also appreciate what you are trying to achieve with your new 'Technique'....

However I think there are other major fundamental problems which are effecting the 'User Friendly' usage of Pte.5xx

as it is now ~ and which is impacting upon the new 'Novice-User' and new Purchaser's and existing Basic User's.

By using a 2.Button 'Set-Up' for the Program (proposed above) now your Technique could be modified or incorporated

into the 'Advanced Options' Button shown above in Post #33.

I do hope Igor and the Team give some thought to the 2.Button 'Set-Up' option ~ this is not a new idea ~ as hundreds

of other Programs use the same set-up system, viz:-

** Basic Set-Up

** Basic ++

** Advanced/Custom

Hopefully both our suggestions will be considered ~and more important~ it will give Igor & Team more time and space

to test and develop other options without effecting the 'Basic Program' and its (previous) User friendliness.

Regards,

Brian.Conflow.

[xahu34]

... some authors use special "Original size" mode of objects to set absolute/fixed size of an image in pixels. This image never will be resized/resampled....

Igor,

In most cases this is true, but not when using Jean-Pierre's construction. Here all objects in a slide are set to original mode except one horizontal transparent stripe (called cale, French word for wedge) having fit to slide mode, and which is the father of all other objects. If the width of the transparent stripe does not match the width of the display, it will be resized, and all the children (in original mode) will follow to be resized, as well. This method seems to deliver very precise results as you can see in JPD's show "Dis la nostalgie" where the zooming image in the small window consists of 45 pieces.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[JPD]

Thanks, Xaver, you well complete my explanation, Brian, what I try to explain for objects mode would be simplest for everybody and for beginners, I don't try to make PTE more complex, only more logical. You know, PTE as it is today is OK for me, I have no problem, but I also think to all beginners I help everydays and who have some difficulties.

Your idea, which is not new, as you said, is a solution, but I remember at work some program with this option, and everybody was always in "Expert mode"....

[JPD]

Jean-Pierre,

I wonder if it would help people (it certainly would be appreciated by me) if you were able to put together a short, basic tutorial of your method.

I suspect there a lot of people like myself who do not FULLY understand what is being discussed here.

Generally I am more than happy to let those of you who are more competent and able to take the lead and represent the general view but I would like to have a clearer understanding of all that is being proposed.

Regards

John

Afin qu'il y ait moins d'erreur de traduction, j'écris en français, ainsi la traduction directe de français à russe sera peut-être meilleure que français à anglais puis anglais à russe.

Voici un exemple que j'ai fait pour un utilisateur PTE qui souhaitait utiliser 2 vidéo-projecteurs de 1400 x 1050 pour faire des images en cinémascope (voir ici le principe en image).

L'album PTE disponible ici utilise sur toutes ses vues une cale de 1050 pixels de haut et 2 de large (fichier gif transparent). Toutes les cales sont en mode "Ajuster au format" et sont toutes déclarées dans cet exemple comme "Image principale".

Toutes les autres images ou objets sont en mode "Original".

Le format du montage est de 2.6667 (2800/1050), la taille nominale du format est de 2800 x 1050 et les images ne sont pas redimensionnées à cette définition.

Si votre écran a une définition différente, le format s'adaptera à cette définition et déterminera une hauteur et largeur utile du format en pixels. Le fichier "Cale" de 1050 pixels de haut s'adaptera à la hauteur du format calculée par PTE pour votre écran, sa dimension verticale affichée sera 1050 x hauteur du format à l'écran / 1050, et toutes les images ou objets, enfants de cette cale seront eux aussi ajustés de la même valeur hauteur du format à l'écran / 1050, il en sera de même pour la position du centre des différents objets, la position relative des différents objets sera parfaitement respectée dans tous les cas.

Dans l'album présenté, toutes les cales ont été mises comme images principales, si vous voulez transformer tout le montage en mode original, il suffit d'aller dans l'onglet "Ecran" de la "Configuration des options du projet" de cocher la case "Ne pas ajuster l'image principale à l'écran" (au format serait plus judicieux) et de cliquer sur le bouton "Appliquer".

L'inconvénient aujourd'hui est que le format est géré indépendemment et masque une partie de l'image même si l'écran pourrait la montrer. Pour contourner ce problème, dans le cas de cet album, on est obligé de se mettre en mode fenêtré à 2800 x 1050 pixels.

Si vous voulez réduire la taille de tout le montage à 90% pour faire un DVD, il suffit de mettre 90% pour l'option "% de l'écran occupé par l'image principale" et de cliquer sur appliquer pour que tout le montage soit réduit à 90%.

Une autre solution consiste à remplacer le fichier cale de 1050 x 2 par une autre de 1167 (1050/0.9) x 2, cela donne le même résultat mais a l'avantage que cela fonctionne, même si les cales ne sont pas mises comme images principales.

Le problème aujoud'hui est que lorsqu'on réduit toutes les images, le format continue à prendre toute la largeur (ou toute la hauteur, selon les cas) de l'écran, c'est la raison pour laquelle il y a sur chaque vue 4 rectangles noirs (Mask).

Dans ma proposition, en définissant la taille nominale du format (dans ce cas ce serait 2800 x 1050), soit en indiquant largeur et hauteur en pixels, soit en donnant seulement la hauteur et un coefficient pour le format (ici 2.6667), il n'y aurait plus besoin de cales, c'est l'information de la hauteur qui permettrait à PTE de faire les calculs qu'il fait aujourd'hui à partir de la taille de la cale), comme c'est le cas dans l'exemple, tous les objets seraient redimensionnés et repositionnés selon le rapport "taille calculée du format en fonction de la définition d'écran" / "hauteur nominale définie pour le montage".

C'est au format que l'on imposerait des options :

- Format ajusté à la définition d'écran

- Format utilisant x% de la définition d'écran, dans ce cas le format se limiterait au pourcentage indiqué et les rectangles noirs utilisés (Mask) ne seraient plus utiles.

- Format en mode original, dans ce cas, le format pourrait déborder de l'écran si l'écran n'a pas une définition suffisante, cette option est nécessaire dans de rares cas, comme celui de cet exemple.

- Format original si la définition d'écran est supérieure à celle du format, format ajusté à la définition d'écran si celle-ci est insuffisante pour afficher tout le format.

Une telle définition permettrait de faire 99.9% de ce que l'on peut faire aujourd'hui, les objets n'auraient plus qu'un seul mode contre 3 aujourd'hui. Le menu serait plus simple, l'album PTE allégé et les calculs probablement moins lourds.

Le seul montage qui ne serait pas compatible avec cette définition est l'album avec les cubes car j'ai utilisé l'option "couvrir le format" pour que les images de toutes tailles qu'utiliseraient les gens s'adapte à l'album, pour une application normale, cette fonction n'a pas d'utilité à mon sens.

Une telle méthode éviterait aux débutants (et quelques fois aux utilisateurs expérimentés) d'avoir dans un même montage des objets de niveau 1 en mode "original" et d'autre en mode "ajuster à l'écran", comme il m'arrive assez souvent d'en rencontrer, ou des positions en pixels sur certains objets et d'autres en pourcentage.

Dernier point, il serait souhaitable de pouvoir mettre un fond, (une couleur choisie, avec ou sans dégradé, ou une image) qui puisse couvrir tout l'écran au dela du format (comme on pouvait le faire avec la V4 lorsqu'on utilisait le logo d'auteur à cette fin et des images en objets), ce fond (couleur ou image ayant le même ajustement que l'ensemble des objets en fonctions des options de redimensionnement retenues. Il faudrait lui donner également une taille en pixels pour la valeur nominale du format, avec une option, en cas d'écran ayant une définition plus grande de répéter ou non ce fond. Ce fond devrait être positionné au centre de l'écran.

In order that there be fewer translation error, I write in French, the direct translation from French to Russian may be better than French to English and then English to Russian.

Here is an example that I made for a user who wanted to use PTE with 2 video projectors 1400 x 1050 to make images in Cinemascope (see here the principle with image).

The PTE template, available here uses in all its slides a wedge the size of which is 1050 pixels high and 2 wide (gif file transparent). All wedges are with mode "Fit to slide" and all are put in this example as "Main image."

All other images or objects are with "Original" mode.

The format of the slideshow is 2.6667 (2800/1050), the size of the nominal format is 2800 x 1050 and the images are not resized for this definition.

If your screen has a different definition, the format will be adapted to this definition and PTE will determine usefull height and width of the format in pixels. The file "Cale" (wedge) with height of 1050 pixels adapt the final format calculated by PTE for your screen, its vertical dimension will be posted 1050 x height of the format to screen / 1050, and all images or objects, children of it. This wedge will also be adjusted value of the same height format on the screen / 1050, the same will apply for the position of the centre of different objects, the relative position of different objects will be fully respected in all cases.

In the template presented all the wedges (Cales) have been placed as the main images, if you want to transform the entire slideshow to original mode, just go in the "screen windows" of the "configuration options" tick box "Disable scaling of main image" and click the "Set for existing slides" button.

The problem today, if we want to be in original mode, is that the format is managed independently and mask a part of the picture even if the screen could show it. To circumvent this problem, in the case of this album, one is obliged to put in windowed mode to 2800 x 1050 pixels.

If you want to reduce the size of the entire assembly to 90% to a DVD, simply put 90% for option "% of the screen to show main image" and click the "Set for existing slides" button, the slideshow is reduced to 90%.

Another solution is to replace the wedge file of 1050 x 2 by another of 1167 (1050/0.9) x 2, it gives the same result but has the advantage that it works, even if the wedges are not placed as main images.

The problem today is that when you reduce all images, the format continues to take the entire width (or any height, as appropriate) of the screen, that is why there is on each view 4 black rectangles (Mask).

In my proposal, by defining the nominal size of the format (in this case it would be 2800 x 1050), indicating width and height in pixels, or by giving only the height and a coefficient for the format (here 2.6667), there would no need of wedge,it would be the height which is the information that would allow PTE to calculations it made today from the size of the wedge), as is the case in example, all objects are resized and repositioned according to the report "format size calculated according to the definition screen" / "nominal format size set for the slideshow."

This is to the format that we impose options:

- Format adjusted the definition screen

- Format using x% of the definition screen, in this case the format would be limited to the percentage indicated and used black rectangles (Mask) wouldn't be more useful.

- Format original mode, in this case, the format could be bigger than the screen if the screen is not a sufficient definition, this option is necessary in rare cases, such as this example.

- Format original definition if the screen is larger than the size, format adjusted to the definition screen if it is insufficient to show any format. (Would solve Barry's problem).

Such a definition would be 99.9% of what can be done today, the objects have more than one mode against 3 today. The menu is simpler, PTE template smaller and calculations probably less heavy.

The only template which is not compatible with this definition is the album with cubes because I used the "cover slide" so that images of all sizes used by people are adapted to the album. For a normal application, this function has no relevance to my senses.

Such an approach would avoid the novice (and sometimes experienced users) have in the same slide objects level 1 mode "original" and the other mode "to adjust the screen", as it happens quite often to meet, or pixels positions on certain objects and other percentage.(always at level 1).

Last point, it would be nice to be able to put a background (a color chosen, with or without degraded, or an image) that can cover the entire screen beyond format (as might be done with the V4 when used copyright logo for this purpose and images into objects), background (or color image) having the same adjustment that all objects dependind of the format adjustment options chosen. (As Barry try to solve on one of his slideshow with an external tools or as I do with using a V4 exe to launch a V5 one). It would also necessary to give a pixel size for the nominal value of the format for a background without picture, with an option, in case screen with a greater definition to repeat or not the background. This fund should be positioned in the center of the screen.

Note : if the format chosen is 1400 x 1050 and the size of the background picture is 2800 x 1050 with zoom at 100%, the background wil always be twice the format for width. This background would be as copyright logo, for all the slides and without any effects on it.

I am not sure my translation is good, I have do it as best as possible for me.

Here is a template which show the 2 opportunities that PTE give us today (for special templates) and that we'll lose if there are

1 - no choice for mode object (always in original mode for nominal size of format)

2 - no choice for position object (always in pixels for nominal format)

I think if these two options doesn't exist, it will always possible to do all the slideshows existing today (just the cube template and the clock template will be to change), I think that nobody else than me used these opportunities that PTE offer today.

I think it would easiest for everybody and also for beginners. For me, that's no matter, I have no problem with these functions, I just lose 2 opportunities but it's not the most important.

[Conflow]

Xaver and Jean-Pierre,

Xaver,your explaination of Jean-Pierre's 'Technique' is really excellent and although I completely agree with what Jean-Pierre

is trying to achieve we still have the problem where each and every 'New Utility' placed within the PTE Program is alienating and

confusing the 'New Novice User' and the 'New Purchases' and the existing 'Basic User'....sure, we all become experts in time

should we so choose to be....and that's the problem !!!....which I am trying to explain to Jean-Pierre and others.

One only has to read the Forum Posts to see that these problems are a reality, and with the greatest respects to Jean-Pierre,

I also like to use Advanced Utilities when and if needed. However these should not be 'Parked' within the basic Program.

(This is no reflection on Jean-Pierre's 'Technique' but it is an 'Advanced Feature' which needs 'beta testing' within the Program

before becomming a standard feature of it.)

Surely a system of 'Plug-Ins' or 2 Button Set-Up would be more User Friendly to the New User and Basic User and Expert alike ?

Now Guys, don't shoot the Messenger, I am purely reflecting what other Users are saying and feeling about Pte.5.5+++plus,plus

Brian.Conflow.

[xahu34]

Igor,

Regarding the proposed mode, having slides with fixed size, I agree with JPD that it would be nice to have the option for the 100% view of images, not to be enlarged. So, if the slide's size is 1200x800, and you insert an image of size 500x400, (as an option) it should not be blown up (to 1000x800) automatically, and then be reduced in size using the zoom function.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[xahu34]

..Now Guys, don't shoot the Messenger...

Brian,

I will not shoot the messenger, not even with words. Let me just remark that we now have at least two discussions in this thread, Igor's initial one on the image modes, and a second one on usability. There should be different lines of discussion.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Ken Cox]

It is Igor's thread but he should have put it in the proper section as Lin suggested - the thead/discussion has gone too far to be separated at this time but it should be moved to the "suggestions for" section

the resolution subject has been a thorn in the program for years -- it really bothered the "experts" but the normal people never seemed to complain.

but if buttons can be made to start the show in 4.49, then switch to 5.5+ standard then 5.5+ expert all the while when a save as command is given it saves it under the version it was made with and indicated as such in the name of the pte

this should make everybody happy and we wont have to change our screen res to view Barry's shows anymore

ken

[Igor]

Thank you for your thoughts and opinions! I'm reading all posts right now and will reply step by step.

Now I'd like to reply on the question regarding complexity of PicturesToExe.

We will take in attention all seriousness of this problem. Probably I didn't think enough about it before. Please wait for results. I'll add new features carefully trying keep simple the base interface.

Thanks, Brian, for the idea.

V5.5 still small enough, works fast and reliable.

Yes, v5.0 has bring a lot of changes, but after - in v5.1, v5.5 we didn't complicate PicturesToExe. Opposite it became more simple in use due to the integrated timeline and added mini-player.

I know it's necessary to think now use or don't use hardware acceleratation, problem with incorrect colors on ATI video cards with adjusted desktop gamma, slow work of slideshows on very old video cards. v4.49 was more simple, yes.

But almost all have seen terrific and impressive slideshows/AVs with smart usage of Pan/Zoom effects. So it's necessary. To provide Pan/Zoom effects with high quality sharpness of picture and smoothness we have to use hardware acceleration. No other variants. Payment for this is slow playback some old video cards (more rare with every year).

Additionally we've added a special option and it's possible to uncheck "Hardware acceleration". And you can create v4.49's like slideshows with same speed and quality (excluding only Mosaic effect).

p.s. I've renamed this topic to more actual name because of various raised questions.

[Peter S]

I tried to follow this thread but not very successfully.

I downloaded JPD's example and ran a preview. What I see is two images with a wide black stripe down the middle. Have I missed something? This is not what I expected! Does it only show properly if projected?

I have had a deeper look at the O & A in this short example and would have to say it looks anything but straight forward! There are vertical wedges and horizontal wedges, small strips of images, parents and children. It all looks very clever but certainly not for the average user. I think there must be a much more simple example of the wedge being used on a series of single images.

If you have such an example Jean-Pierre could you please post that too?

Kind regards

Peter

[JEB]

Jean-Pierre,

Thank you for taking the trouble, particularly given the language problem, to provide an illustration of your technique. I think I now understand the principal of your method more clearly.

I am tempted to use the overused used phrase "it's easy when you know how" as there is a great deal of truth in that statement. However, as someone who is not naturally technical I still get a great deal of satisfaction from utilizing "work a rounds" if that is the correct phrase to use, I can't help believe that if PTE is to continue to attract new users there have to be some operational compromises.

I think it is very important that innovative users such as yourself and many others are able to continue to push the boundaries and have a product that enables them to do just that. The danger is, as has been recognized, that non technical people will be put off. I feel sure than Igor and his team will deliberate on all that is being said and come up with solutions that enables the novice and the expert to benefit. It seems to me for instance that your technique could be "automated" as an option, for simple uncomplicated situations without taking away the flexibility for those who wish to use the process in a more personal way. But then as I said I'm not technical !!!

Regards

John

[Conflow]

Igor & Team,

Many thanks for the reply acknowledgement ~ and may I say the following:-

PTE is a very successful Program and its getting better all the time, but in everyday life good Programs tend to become 'victim' of their own success ~ this also applies to Cars, Trains, Planes and Software etc.

The more an object becomes successful, the more demands are made on it, such as you have written:-

Item.1

Quoted..."I know it's necessary to think now use or don't use hardware acceleratation, problem with incorrect colors on ATI video cards with adjusted desktop gamma, slow work of slideshows on very old video cards"....

Answer:-These are not PTE problem's they are "external" Hardware problems with some Computers and thats the reason I proposed the 2xButton Program Set-Up....Select Button.1 and Pte.5xx runs as if it was Pte4.49. Igor you have tried to help these people ~ but why compromise your Program with issues not of your making ??

Item.2

Quoted..."But almost all have seen terrific and impressive slideshows/AVs with smart usage of Pan/Zoom effects.

So it's necessary to provide Pan/Zoom effects we have to use hardware acceleration"

Answer:-Absolutely no problems with PZR Effect in PTE, they are wonderful excellent features but they are hard to use for the 'Novice' and 'New Purchaser' and there are many Pte Users who don't use those features at all, so again if you select Button.1 (proposal) that would make Pte.5xx run as if it were Pte.4.49.

But this Button also gives access to PZR Effect when the 'Novice' has enough experience and is ready to use it.

Item.3

The Big Problem... (How you are going to solve this I do not know)....Standard JPeg Image Size -V- Monitor Size's, and those who demand 'Full-Screen' in 4:3 Format or 16:10 Format and there are no 'Standard Camera Image Size's.

Answer:-

That was the reason for (proposal) Button.2...Advanced Features Button. Under that Button one could try out Jean-Pierre's Technique or indeed develop some 'Plug-Ins' which would accomodate the most popular Screen Size's without interfering with the Basic Pte.5xx Program with Acceleration switched on.

If the Screen-Size 'Plug-In' works, thats great ~ if it doesn't work, try another, or wait till one becomes available.

Finally I do know that you are working hard on the 'Mac System' and the 'iPod Interface' and other small 'Bugs'and I also know that the 'Novice' and 'New User' has concerns and I realise that there are only 24 Hours in the Day, so my 2.Button 'Set-Up Proposal' was my effort to try and help you overcome the 'immediate' problems and give you more time to work on your schedules without the distractions of these concerns......I think it would work for you.

Kind Regards,

Brian.Conflow.

[jfa]

Brian, Igor and everyone.

I am not against the addition of your proposed 2xButton Program Set-Up Brian, in fact I think it is an eloquent solution if one was need in the program. However I think there is an even simpler solution to the "New used PTE confusion" development problem highlighted in this thread by you and others.

This would not involve more programing, consuming more of Igor and his teams time or adding more functions to the PTE interface.

Simply make PTE v4.49 available renamed as PTE Basic which has no further development as presently is the case.

This would become the beginners version and when or if ever the user wishers to use the more advanced features they simply move to the PTE Advanced version, currently v5.5, which continues to develop as required to keep pace in the market and meet the needs of the more advanced users.

Both versions live comfortably side by side on the PC, it just requires a slight re-thinking of what the 2 version are called and how they are presented. This is done with a simple renaming and the way each is presented on the WnSoft Web-site.

So we would see--

PTE Basic -- currently v4.49 with no further development, (as now).

PTE Advanced -- currently v5.5 with continued development (as now).

PTE Full -- currently v5.5 + DVD burner with continued development (as now).

[JPD]

I have finish to translate the topic I wrote in french and add an example of what would become impossible if there are no option for objects about mode and position (what would be simplest for many PTE users and beginners).

Once a more I say, that actual PTE isn't a problem for me for these functions, I only think to those I help everydays, that's all.

About proposal for several versions of PTE, I don't agree, I think 2 or 3 options as beginners, normal and expert mode is enough.

Plugins seems to me a bad idea. It would be more difficult to help people to use PTE (it's not always easy).

The danger is, as has been recognized, that non technical people will be put off.

What I try to explain about objects and format would be simplest to use for everybody, but not so complete for me (no matter).