Questions on next version 5.6

[fh1805]

Well, here it is! After nearly 72 hours of dialogue with JPD, and a couple of e-mails to Gerard Desroches, I have finally been able to produce a summary in English of both the "Cale" method currently used by the French diaporamists and also of JPD's proposed new technique.

I have undertaken this work because I felt that there was a lack of understanding of both methods by many of the English-speaking forum members. It is not possible to have a sensible discussion if one does not understand the subject being discussed. The document is only one and a half sides of A4 and is almost entirely free of any mathematics. I have tried to summarise using as little technical language as possible.

I hope it helps to make the situation clearer.

JPD_Proposal.pdf

I have, this afternoon, started a dialogue with Igor from which I hope to get an equally clear understanding of his new "Size in pixels" option. Once I have that understanding I will be able to make a sound comparison of the two methods (Igor's and JPD's). I will, of course, keep the forum advised of progress on these discussions. I'm afraid my work on the FAQs is now "on hold" as I feel that this is a more important topic.

regards,

Peter

[Bobo]

Bobo,

If you are applying the same customization to many slides you can select them all using either Shift+Click (for a contiguous group) or Ctrl+Click (for a broken collection).

regards,

Peter

You are WONDERFUL! You just made my life that much easier!

Thank you SOOOO much!

[hlion]

Well, here it is! After nearly 72 hours of dialogue with JPD, and a couple of e-mails to Gerard Desroches, I have finally been able to produce a summary in English of both the "Cale" method currently used by the French diaporamists and also of JPD's proposed new technique.

Peter

Many thanks Peter for this very good and concise work which will help everyone to progress on the dicussion.

For the translation of "cale" I may suggest CALIBRE which has the same meaning...and the same spelling in french and english.

Regards,

Henri

[Lmoreels]

Many thanks to JPD and Peter for their work.

I agree with the vieuw of JPD on this.

Luc M

[JEB]

Thank you Peter for your work in clarifying, for those of us who were struggling to understand, JPD's excellent work. I for one have a better understanding and appreciation of the technique being proposed. I look forward to hearing the outcome of your dialogue with Igor.

One small point I would like to mention at this time concerns “Tiled Background Picture”. I have no wish to confuse the issue at this point but I use this quite frequently and would do more, if it were possible to change the background image within a show. My need is to have a different background slide for one group of slides to that of another group of slides. At present I do this by inserting a “background” image into each slide and superimposing the actual image on top of it. No big problem and perhaps there is some other way of achieving this so please don’t get sidetracked with this at this time.

Regards

John

[davegee]

Hi Peter,

I have read the PDF a couple of times and would like to briefly comment on what I understand so far.

If we just take the first section - "The Cale Method".

If we substitute a "FRAME" for the "CALE" then I see no difference in the methodology - correct?

If we take your 1280x1024 project example and all of the images used in the project (main images, parents and children) are either 1280 wide or 1024 high then "Fit to Slide" and "Original Mode" are one and the same thing - correct?

If we take your 1280x1024 project example and insert an image into the frame which is 640 pixels wide and set a zoom figure of 50% in animation then the 640 pixel image has an actual pixels relationship with the parent frame – correct?

So, if we know the relationship between the parent frame and the inserted image we are able to correctly set the relationship via the Zoom setting in Animation (if necessary).

All of this also fits in with the concept of constructing projects in Layers in Photoshop so no problems there.

So far so good – I see nothing here which is totally reliant on “Original Mode”. Maybe the “Virtual Cale” or “Virtual Frame” will throw up some anomalies which have so far not surfaced?

DaveG

[JPD]

If we substitute a "FRAME" for the "CALE" then I see no difference in the methodology - correct?

Not correct, with a cale all ojects will be always resize with the height of format, with a frame, it depend of its size it's maybe with the height or with the width and it's not the same thing (a little difference sometimes depending or format and screen definition). Another thing, if you want resize your slideshow to do a DVD, you have just to change the cale, else you have to modify your frame in each slide, too much more work.

If we take your 1280x1024 project example and all of the images used in the project (main images, parents and children) are either 1280 wide or 1024 high then "Fit to Slide" and "Original Mode" are one and the same thing - correct?

If we take your 1280x1024 project example and insert an image into the frame which is 640 pixels wide and set a zoom figure of 50% in animation then the 640 pixel image has an actual pixels relationship with the parent frame – correct?

So, if we know the relationship between the parent frame and the inserted image we are able to correctly set the relationship via the Zoom setting in Animation (if necessary).

All of this also fits in with the concept of constructing projects in Layers in Photoshop so no problems there.

So far so good – I see nothing here which is totally reliant on "Original Mode". Maybe the "Virtual Cale" or "Virtual Frame" will throw up some anomalies which have so far not surfaced?

DaveG

The actual Size/position tool (beta 4) seems have some problems, I just send to Peter and Igor an example.

I have made 2 Excel files in which are the formulas of posts #82 and #83, they are the same, but one is complette and the other give the same result but some lines and columns are hiden. You can simulate all example using V5.52

[fh1805]

Hi DaveG

...If we substitute a "FRAME" for the "CALE" then I see no difference in the methodology - correct?...

As JPD has pointed out in his reply, your understanding is not correct on this point. A Frame and a Cale do work the same in terms of automatically resizing to the actual monitor resolution on which the sequence is being played back. But the difference comes when wanting to reduce the entire sequence down to 90% of its size in order to fit into the TV Safe Zone. With the Cale all that you need to do is replace the Cale file (it is an actual image file) with one that is 90% of the original in size (i.e. 10% smaller), open the pte file and create the DVD-Video file. With a Frame you would have to open the pte file and manually resize each Frame on each slide - a very time-consuming task!

As to your other points, you are now asking about the practicalities of how things work. That is the aspect that I am now researching. I understand the basic principles but now I must understand the practical implementation of them and the user interface requirements of them.

As my knowledge and understanding rises I will ensure that it gets published on the forum. But I anticipate this could be a long learning curve.

regards,

Peter

[xahu34]

...If we substitute a "FRAME" for the "CALE" then I see no difference in the methodology - correct?...

Dave,

I think that you can use the frame method (I proposed it to Jean-Pierre a couple of days ago in a PM) in order to do similar adjustments as they can be done with the cale method. A major difference in my eyes seems to be that 5.5 with original mode places objects pixel oriented, while 5.6 internally seems to be completely percentage oriented. The size/position window only seems to be a tool for avoiding calculations (from pixels to percentages). I had a look at a project file created with 5.6: It did not contain the pixel coordinates which I typed into that window, but only the corresponding percentage information. The images all have position mode "percent", I think that position mode "absolute" does no longer exist.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[davegee]

Hi Peter,

As I have previously stated I no longer make DVDs because of the quality issues but I respect the needs of others.

I wasn't asking about practicalities - I was making statements, which I think as you progress you will find are correct.

My concerns are for the future development of PTE which Igor has said will be better served without Original Mode and I'm sure that there must be a compromise solution which will work within the framework of what Igor has provided in 5.6.

So, to sum up again, with the exception of reducing the size of the project for making a DVD, the reliance on Original Mode is not there. What we should be looking for is a solution to the TV Safe Zone problem.

DaveG

[davegee]

Xaver,

I can't agree.

Please consider this:

I have a Full screen 5:4 Project on my 1920x1200 monitor in front of me.

In O&A I insert a JPEG which is 1000x500 pixels.

It opens up as Fit to Slide and fills the width of my screen.

I click on Size in the "Size/Position.." screen and it resizes my JPEG to the correct relationship with the screen and tells me that the image size is 1000x500.

It also tells me that the position of my image relative to the left of the screen is 250 Pixels and to the top of the screen 350 Pixels.

I'll let you do the Math but I think you'll find that it's giving me the correct information.

I change the 250 figure to zero and the image flies over to the left extreme. I change the 350 to zero and my image flies to the top extreme.

I can set any pixel value I like and the image goes precisely where I require it.

Can you reproduce that and is it not "absolute"?

DaveG

[JPD]

Maybe in your example it's good, but please look at this one, you problably change your opinion. Both rectangle, red and green are 1280 x 960 on a 1280 x 960 screen definion. Have a look in OA.

[xahu34]

Xaver, I can't agree...

Dave,

your observations do not contradict with mine. In order to check my assertion, you should use a text editor and examine and compare pte-files generated with versions 5.5 and 5.6 using a text editor. Study the attributes of images having original mode (version 5,5). These images are marked as "absolute", a value which does not seem to exist in 5.6.

Best regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

Xaver (part 2),

If the same 1000x500 JPEG is inserted into a frame then weird things start to happen.

In order to get the same results when using a frame I have to insert a 1500x1200 transparent PNG file with the 1000x500 JPEG in the centre to achieve the same result.

The properties of the PARENT FRAME are now what I have to consider.The position figures in the "Size/Position..." box for the FRAME now show zero.

To move my 1000x500 JPEG to the left extreme of the frame I should be able to type Minus 250 into the properties of the FRAME but I have to use the up and down arrows to get to where I want.

(I think there is a problem here IGOR)

The same applies when I want to move my 1000x500 image to the top of the frame (-350).

DaveG

[davegee]

JP,

You only sent the project file - can you send Backup in Zip?

I the meantime please look at part two of my reply to Xaver?

DaveG

[JPD]

JP,

You only sent the project file - can you send Backup in Zip?

I the meantime please look at part two of my reply to Xaver?

DaveG

Open it with V5.6, there are no picture, only rectangle, it work.

[Igor]

I just posted my article on this issue:

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=58255

[davegee]

JP,

With great respect, your problem is the BLUE image.

If you substitute a 1280x960 PNG file with a 640x480 blue image in the centre it will appear as it should and all measurements in the "Size/Position.." will be correct.

When making alterations to the BLUE image you then calculate according to the outer frame which is, of course, 1280x960.

DaveG

[fh1805]

As this discussion is now about the effects of the "Size/position in pixels..." window could we please use the thread that I have set up for that purpose? Thanks in anticipation...

Peter

[JPD]

JP,

With great respect, your problem is the BLUE image.

If you substitute a 1280x960 PNG file with a 640x480 blue image in the centre it will appear as it should and all measurements in the "Size/Position.." will be correct.

When making alterations to the BLUE image you then calculate according to the outer frame which is, of course, 1280x960.

DaveG

Yes, that's right, will you have always as parent the right size which made the values good ?.........No

[davegee]

JP,

Why not?

We have to change with the times and adapt to new working procedures.

DaveG

[fh1805]

DaveG,

Please see my post here: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index....ost&p=58265

I believe that what is being seen in JPD's simple example is a bug in the working of "Size/position in pixels...". A 100 pixel offset should always be a 100 pixel offset. And in this case, one of them isn't.

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

Hi Peter,

Once again, and with great respect, have you tried what I have suggested to JP?

The attached screen shot shows the difference. The size and position figures show tha actual pixels relationship between the green and blue images.

The Blue image is a 1600x1200 transparent PNG with a 640x480 Blue image at the centre.

When I select any of the images the correct pixel relationship between it and its parent is shown.

DaveG

EDITED

[fh1805]

Why should I have to do something which is counter-intuitive?

What could be simpler than to add a child to a parent and say that I want the child's top left corner to be 100 pixels to the right of and 100 pixels down from the parent's top-left corner. It should not matter what size the parent is. It should not matter what size the child is. It should not matter where the parent is relative to any other point of reference. 100 pixels right and 100 pixels down should always be 100 pixels right and 100 pixels down. It should never come out as 130 pixels right and 130 pixels down (or whatever the actual wrong offset is)

The difference between us is that you are thinking of a way to get the software to do what you want even if that means doing something additional; I am wanting the software to do what I think it should be doing based upon my understanding of the effect of the input field values.

And until we get PTE behaving in a more intuitive manner it will always seem like an over-complicated piece of software to the newbies.

I believe that JPD has identified either a bug in the code of PTE or a deficiency in the design of this function. Yes, there are workaround options; but that is what they should be seen as. The root cause needs to be identified and fixed.

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

Sorry Peter,

We were both writing at the same time.

It won't be counter intuitive to JP - he says that he uses layers to construct his shows.

What could be easier than saving each layer at its full resolution either as a JPEG (if it has no transparency) or a PNG (if it has transparency)?

DaveG