Size/position in pixels of parent

[fh1805]

Having completed the English summary of the "Cale" method and JPD's proposal in respect of "Original" mode (see here), I am now trying to understand Igor's alternative to "Original" mode: "Size/position in pixels of parent". I have tried to construct some images using this facility and I cannot get it to work as I thought it should. I must be doing something wrong because, as part of the work I have just done on JPD's proposal, Igor sent me a demo video of him using this feature. When he uses it, it behaves as I expected it would. But it doesn't behave that way for me.

The test sequence (available on MediaFire here: http://www.mediafire.com/?otmmotzwjoz) uses four images:

- D46 is 1200x1600 pixels

- D49 is 1600x1200 pixels

- D1500 is 3008x2000 pixels

- D1501 is 2000x3008 pixels

Each slide contains a Frame that is sized at 1280x1024 pixels and two copies of one of the image files. One copy of the image file is an independent object. The other copy is a child of the frame. For each child image I have used the "Size/position in pixels of parent" window to set the position to coordinates 0,0 (= align to the top-left corner). I have also used "Size/position in pixels of parent" window to set the size of the child to be its original size as given above. The result is that I get the thumbnail sized image.

This is very clearly not the same effect as "Original" mode. I now know why the French diaporamists are so dismayed.

Nor can this feature be described as "intuitive" to use. If it was truly intuitive I would have worked out by now how to use it to get the result that I want.

How does this feature work? Any and all advice will be welcome. I need to understand this in order to do the comparison of this method and JPD's proposal.

regards,

Peter

[RayC]

Hi Peter,

Not sure if this is what you want, for all 4 images in O&A window I clicked on Size for the frame and main image and not the Child.

Pte file in Backup Zip Here http://www.mediafire.com/?wjytyrplg0y

Ray

[fh1805]

Ray,

Thanks for the suggestion but, for the purpose of the understanding that I am trying to get, it is vital that the operations apply to the child image. The other image is there simply to show how it should look if it was allowed to display without the use of a Frame and the "Size/position in pixels..." window.

I've done some more tests with v56b4 and the root cause of my difficulty is that I cannot get the Frame to "lock on" to the size 1280x1024 which I set for it using the two edit boxes in the "Size/position..." window. It keeps changing to a size of 10000x8000.

In the project file attached to this post, immediately before I saved the project file, the Frame was displaying its size as 1280x1024 in the edit boxes in the "Size/position..." window and the image file, A49, was displaying as 1280x960. And yet the image file still appeared as just a thumbnail image. The only way I can get the image to appear larger is to increase the zoom value on the Animation tab. But this then increases its "size" in the edit boxes in "Size/position in pixels...".

There is no way that even an advanced user can make any sense of this feature. Nothing about iit is, in any sense of the word, "intuitive". And yet, when I watch a video clip that Igor has sent me explaining how to use this feature it behaves for him exactly as I expected it should and exactly as I want it to. It has to be me missing something that is fundamental to this whole area.

What I want to be able to do is:

- set a Frame of size 1280x1024 (the same dimensions as the resolution of my monitor)

- add a child image whose size is 1280x960

- set the position of this child where I want it to be relative to its parent (the Frame)

and I want to do all that simply and easily and using the "by pixels" method so that I am using the tool that Igor has offered as an alternative to Original size. If I still had "Original" I could have done all this hours ago.

I take that last statement back. Having just tried to do the same thing using Original mode in v5.52 I find that it, too, behaves in this odd way. The root cause of the problem clearly has to do with my understanding of how to get PTE to do what I want. This all simply reinforces my view that use of PTE in this feature is NOT intuitive.

regards,

Peter

v56b4_Size_in_pixels_2_Oct29_2008_11_03_48.zip

[fh1805]

I said I was missing something fundamental. And now I've found it!

I needed to define the size of the Frame in its Properties tab. Having done that, everything starts to work as I expected it should. Now to get on with the tests!

Sorry to have bothered you all this morning.

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

Peter,

When you add a frame it automatically "fits to slide" (in my case). Therefore if you add a frame to a 1280x1024 project it already is 1280x1024.

When you add a 1280x960 "child" to the frame it automatically "fits to slide" (fits to width) and is in reality in original mode because of its relationship with the project size. Anything you do to it afterwards is relative to its parent.

Keep the animation tab open and you can see what is happening to the "child".

If you downloaded the "Masks and Frames" Backup in Zip before I disabled it you can see it in action there.

DaveG

[fh1805]

DaveG,

When you add a frame it automatically "fits to slide" (in my case). Therefore if you add a frame to a 1280x1024 project it already is 1280x1024.

Not if you add it as an independent object, it doesn't (using v5.6 beta 4 in my case). It comes in as visually fitting the screen definition (i.e. it is "Fit to Slide") but its absolute size is 10000 x 8000. Watch the vales in the Properties tab of O&A. If you then add a child to this Frame, the child is sized to the absolute parent and not to the visually reduced parent. That was the fundamental point I was missing.

After adding the frame it is necessary to change its size in the Properties fields. Then, and only then, will any added children assume the correct proportions.

regards,

Peter

[Igor]

Replacement of "Original size" mode in v5.6

This subject is of interest chiefly to the more advanced and professional users of PicturesToExe. The features being discussed are not normally used by beginners and less advanced users.

This topic is a continuation of: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8594 and provides:

Detailed explanations of the reasons why I removed Original size mode of objects

An explanation of the new replacement feature

Advice on how to use the new feature

Firstly I must thank Jean-Pierre for his detailed suggestions written here and here. These suggestions raise several issues. It is difficult to discuss all questions simultaneously and so I'll concentrate on the main question now. This topic discusses only the difference between v5.5 and v5.6: between Original size mode and its replacement.

Also thanks to Peter for his comments, additions and help with improving of this text.

Why we added Original size mode:

- Initially "Original size" mode for objects was added because some users asked for the ability to disable scaling of images to fit the screen. (By default all objects use relative size in percents which changes according slide/screen size.)

- A second way of using Original size mode then developed in the user community to create complex slides with many objects.

So we now have two different usages of Original size mode.

Problems of Original size mode

1. The first major problem for authors and viewers of their slideshow comes from the incorrect positioning of objects that are defined in Original size mode when the sequence is played on a device of different display resolution:

This problem is all the more serious because it is a “hidden” problem. If the author doesn’t change his display to another screen resolution he will not even know that the problem exists. This problem can also appear when creating DVD video disc for this slideshow, or video for Youtube.

Jean-Pierre devised a special technique ("Cale") to solve the problem shown on the screenshot. He puts all Original size objects not directly onto the slide, but onto a special image (the “Cale”). This technique solves this problem but not all authors know about this trick (even I didn’t until Jean-Pierre told me). Original size mode in its pure state has logical problems and this worries me. If a feature exists it must work correctly in all situations.

2. The second problem is that we have significant difficulties supporting Original size mode with every new version when we add new features related to the use of objects. The code of Original size mode is very complex. It causes new bugs during beta-testing.

So, in summary, it's a complicated mode with unsolvable logic problems. And it hinders us in making future improvements to PicturesToExe.

Suggested replacement for Original size mode:

In version 5.6 I have provided a replacement feature.

1. For those users who just used "Original size" mode to avoid resizing of images, they just need to enable "Fixed size of slide in pixels" and set particular slide size, say 1024x768. They can then use image files prepared in Photoshop as 1024x768 JPEG images. There is no need to change anything else. It remains a very simple solution. Image objects use "Fit to slide" 100% mode, but because the image file size and the displayed size are now, in this example, both 1024x768 there will be no resizing and the image will look very sharp.

2. For Jean-Pierre and other users who used Original size mode for complex slides with many objects I added a special new tool window. See "Size/position in pixels" button in "Common" tab of Objects and Animation editor. You can work with percents as earlier or with pixels for Size/Position.

Please watch this video where I show how to use new Size/Position tool window for exact placing of several objects to create one united large picture (for special purpose or effects). Say there are 4 pieces 960x540 to make one 1920x1080 image. You can see how easy it now is; when you can define simple pixel values:

http://www.wnsoft.com/apr/help/5.6/SizeTool.zip (5 MB)

The source project and the images are here:

http://www.wnsoft.com/apr/help/5.6/ComplexObjects.zip (700 KB)

Please explore this new feature and try to understand my suggested solution. I think it's much easier than the old "Original size" mode.

What about old projects created with Original size objects?

When you open an old project file in version 5.6, PicturesToExe automatically converts the pte file to a new format. The EXE file and/or the video file created from this project using v5.6 should look the same as that created using the older version of PicturesToExe. If you want to continue making changes to this project you will need to work with the new Size/position tool window.

Accuracy of calculations from pixels values to percent values

After discussion with Jean-Pierre, in Beta 5 we will increase accuracy for internal calculations when you enter pixel values for Position and Size in the new tool window and that should be quite enough.

[fh1805]

How does "Size/position in pixels..." window work?

These notes are written for v5.6 beta 4.

You can use this feature for any object that you place into a slide using the O&A window. The button to open this feature's window is found on the Common tab of the O&A window. Clicking on the button brings up a little floating window. This window has two hyperlinks: Position and Size and two pairs of input fields.

The Position hyperlink, when clicked, will reset the Position coordinates (the two input fields to the right of it) to the value 0,0. These coordinates define where the top left corner of the object will be positioned. If this object is a child of some other object then the coordinates will be applied as an offset from the top-left corner of the parent object. If the selected object has no parent object then the coordinates are applied as an offset for the defined display area. This will be determined by the choice of mode (Fullscreen or Windowed) and the choice of Aspect ratio taken from the Project Options...Screen tab.

The Size hyperlink, when clicked, will set the selected object's size to its actual pixels - and these values will appear in the two fields immediately to the right.

All four coordinate values can also be adjusted using the up/down increment buttons or by selecting and overkeying in the usual way for data entry into a field.

regards,

Peter

P.S. Clearly this is a candidate for a new FAQ. When v5.6 goes final I'll make it one.

[davegee]

Peter has asked me to add to this thread.

He and I are getting different results when we "ADD" a new frame (Beta 4).

The screen shot attached shows what I am getting.

It represents a frame added to a Full-screen 16:9 Project on a 1920x1200 monitor.

On a different sized monitor the SIZE figures should show the resolution of the monitor in use (when running at Native Resolution).

DaveG

[Rickl]

Peter has asked me to add to this thread.

He and I are getting different results when we "ADD" a new frame (Beta 4).

The screen shot attached shows what I am getting.

It represents a frame added to a Full-screen 16:9 Project on a 1920x1200 monitor.

On a different sized monitor the SIZE figures should show the resolution of the monitor in use (when running at Native Resolution).

DaveG

Ok. Not sure I completely understand. But on my native 1280 X 1024 monitor, Set full screen and 16 x 9 DVD.

I cannot create a frame without at least one slide on the slide list. That may be obvious, but since I am new to this and I want to understand...

Created a black image exactly 1920 X 1200, and added it to the list.

I selected the image, and went to Objects and Animation.

With the black slide selected, and size position displayed, adding a frame shows 1152 X 720 and a position of 64, 0.

with the black slide unselected, and adding a frame on top of the black slide, adding a frame shows 1280X720 and a position of 0,0,

Now with a frame and the original black slide shown in the list, I select the black slide again, and add a frame as a child of the black 1920X1200 slide, and I get a size of 1920X1200 and a position of 0,60.

Don't know if this helps... I have no idea of what is going on here...

Dick

[davegee]

Dick,

Please set Fullscreen, 5:4 and add a 1280x1024 image.

In O&A right click on the image title on the right hand side and delete it to leave a plain black background.

Add a frame and if yours behaves the same as mine you should see, in Size/Position, 1280x1024 for Size and two zeros for position.

DaveG

[xahu34]

What about old projects created with Original size objects?

When you open an old project file in version 5.6, PicturesToExe automatically converts the pte file to a new format. The EXE file and/or the video file created from this project using v5.6 should look the same as that created using the older version of PicturesToExe. If you want to continue making changes to this project you will need to work with the new Size/position tool window.

Igor,

Just a question: What happens to the converted exe-files when playing them on monitors of different seizes? Do they really behave in the same way as the old ones containing original mode images? I would be surprised if they did.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[Rickl]

Dick,

Please set Fullscreen, 5:4 and add a 1280x1024 image.

In O&A right click on the image title on the right hand side and delete it to leave a plain black background.

Add a frame and if yours behaves the same as mine you should see, in Size/Position, 1280x1024 for Size and two zeros for position.

DaveG

Yes indeed. exactly the same behaviour. But reading earlier entries from Peter, although the addition of the frame indeed produced a 1280X1024 frame, selecting it and looking at the properties tab the frame is shown as size 10000X8000??? Does this info really refer to the frame I just created?

Dick

[fh1805]

Dick,

That is exactly the point I was making. If you look at the size information for the frame in the Properties tab it shows as 10000x8000 whereas in the "Size/position in pixels..." window it shows as the more logical 1280x1024. If you now add a child image to the frame, and try and position and size the child via the "Size/position in pixels..." window, the child behaves not as though the frame were 1280x1024 but as though it were 10000x8000.

An item with two different size values that can influence the behaviour of PTE in two different ways is a recipe for massive confusion; as the discussion on this topic demonstrates only too clearly! There is a major bug of some sort here!

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

OK Peter,

I copy that.

Now, add a child to the first child and all subsequent children take on the correct size attributes.

It appears to me that it is only the first child that behaves in this strange way?

DaveG

P.S. I think this behaviour only applies to children of FRAMES and not to children of images?

[xahu34]

...There is a major bug of some sort here...

Peter,

This is not a bug. In the Size/position window each object is described relative to the size of its parent, a very simple logic! A top level frame of size 10000x8000 which fills the monitor (1280x1024) has size parameters 1280 and 1024, while the frame's child (independent from its own size, provided it has the same aspect ratio) inherits the parameters 10000 and 8000 in 100 percent view.

Regards,

Xaver

[CorVdK]

Hello to All,

I have seen the following:

1) When in "Project Options" - "Screen Options" the "Fixed size of slide (in pixels)" is ticked, everything is working fine.

Ex.: Pictures 1024 x 768, size on screen = 1024 x 768. When you use bigger or smaller pictures everything is adapted to the 1024 x 768 size on screen. No point if you have a screen of 1600 x 1200, 1680 x 1050, or whatever. Also the parent and child behave perfect.

2) When in "Project Options" - "Screen Options" the "Fixed size of slide (in pixels)" is NOT ticked. I receive the following (according my size of pictures 1024 x 768 and HP display of 1680 x 1050 pixels).

Aspect ratio of a slide: 4:3 Your display: 16:10.

Opening O&A; "Size/position in pixels of parent" I see, Position = 0,0 x 0,0 Size = 1400 x 1050.

What is logical because the aspect ratio of the slide 4 : 3 and the maximum in heigth the screen can show (1050 pixels).

When I put several childs they show always their proper dimensions cq. 1024 x 768. And the Position values are adapted perfect when one change the positions of the child to parent.

So this is all working well and in a logical way.

AS LONG AS YOU DO NOT PUSH FIRST ON THE BLUE "SIZE" BUTTON IN THE LITTLE SCREEN OF THE PARENT SLIDE, because then the parent slide dimensions change to the real dimensions of the slide, this is in my case 1024 x 768, and all other childs are shrinking too. So the proportions on the screen are lost.

As a solution maybe (I'm not a programmer) it is necessary to block the possibility of changing the dimensions of the parent by pushing the "size" button, when in "Project Options - "Screen Options" one want to work with Aspect ratio and display size.

3) Some other small error: The description "Size/position in pixels of parent" is showing the same title for childs also.

Greetings,

Cor

[davegee]

Cor,

After pressing the SIZE button you can bring things back to normal by changing the percentage figure in animations back to 100%.

Regarding 3): All relationships are to the PARENT.

DaveG

[davegee]

Peter,

Until you sort out the apparent anomaly regarding the size/position of a frame can I suggest that using a plain black image with opacity set to zero as a "virtual frame" (to use JPD's terminology) will produce the desired results.

When inserting images as children of other images and using PNG files where necessary the "anomalies" do not occur.

DaveG

[fh1805]

...I think this behaviour only applies to children of FRAMES and not to children of images?...

I think DaveG has isolated the extent of the problem here. The error seems to occur only to children of a Frame.

And that has to be because PTE has got two different sets of size information about the frame. The subsequent behaviour of PTE, in respect of the processing of the children of the frame, is unpredictable because we do not know which set of sizing data PTE will use.

The Frame is an artificial construct from within PTE. It is not a real image file; it is just a generated rectangle of zero opacity. The red, blue and green images in JPD's example are also artificially constructed rectangles and not real image files. I'm not a betting man but I'd be willing to wager that, if JPD re-created his experiment using real image files of the same size as his rectangles, then he would get a different outcome - and probably the outcome that he was originally expecting.

And the reason I'm willing to wager? I have just done that very experiment with real image files. Sure enough, the 100x100 pixel offsets now position the children exactly where they should.

Frames and rectangles whilst appearing to be like other image objects are most definitely not. They have proven that they can be a source of confusion even for seasoned veterans of this software. How much more confusing will they be to a novice user? I suggest that the frame function in PTE be replaced by a transparent gif or png file, the master copy of which is held in a PTE system folder and a working copy of which is placed in the project folder along with the pte file when the pte file is saved.

This will have the effect of making the use of frames identical to the use of all other objects. Quite what the solution is for coloured rectangles, I'm not sure. I'll leave that one for Igor and his team to resolve.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion with their thoughts, ideas and the results of their own experimentation. It demonstrates very clearly the benefit that can be derived from participation in a forum such as this.

regards,

Peter

[fh1805]

One final thought from me:

In v5.6, Mask containers are also a kind of system generated frame. How many unexpected anomalies are lying in wait for us all with these?

Proceed with extreme caution my friends, especially if you are trying to get precise position on all resolutions of playback monitor.

regards,

Peter

[Igor]

Sorry, but I don't understand what a bug related with Frame/Rectangle?

Please could you prepare test project with two slides. One slide has Frame as parent, another slide - real image as parent. Both frame and image has same size (say 1920x1080). If position or size of insered child objects are different on both slides - it can be a bug and I'll explore this problem.

Thanks in advance.

One important moment. When you add image it already has own size (say 1024x768 and aspect ratio as 4:3). Impossible to change this size in O&A editor, but we can transform image with Zoom parameter making image larger/smaller or distorting aspect ratio.

When you add Frame/Rectangle object we don't have its size - it's an abstract object. So we have to assign virtual size say 1920x1080 and then this object acts as an Image object with same result - we can tranform it changing Zoom values.

[fh1805]

Igor,

Have a look at the image file below. It is a screen shot of JPD's project file and it shows that his blue rectangle has two different sizes in PTE. The Properties tab shows its size as 640x480. The "Size/position in pixels..." window shows its size as 960x720 pixels. It cannot have two different pixel sizes - this is impossible. It is either one or the other. But because the size is held in two pairs of fields, the way PTE then behaves is going to be different depending upon which pair of fields you use to get the pixel x pixel size of this object.

It is this difference in sizes that has caused the positioning error.

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

Igor,

Did you pick up my message that it is impossible to enter a minus figure in the position box in "size/Position.." - it has to be done with up/down arrows.

Peter, Can you confirm?

DaveG

[Igor]

Peter,

Where I can download this project in ZIP backup?

Size in pixels shows in tool window is equivalent of percent size of Zoom values in Animation tab and it's visual size of an object.

I really just found one bug - when user change Size values in Properties tab for Frame/Rectangle object we don't see updated values in Size/Position tool window. You have to deleselect and select the object again to see right values. I'll fix this bug. That's all I discovered.