Size/position in pixels of parent

[fh1805]

Igor, it was an attachement to an e-mail that JPD sent you, copy to me and Gerard Desroches. Sent on Wednesday 29 Oct at 12:19

Peter

[xahu34]

Igor, Peter,

It is my impression that each of you has his own interpretation of the Size/Position tool, and these two views seem to be contradictory.

Igor, I think that it would be helpful for some users if you would publish a short specification, in particular how the size parameters in the tool have to be interpreted.

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[fh1805]

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

DaveG,

This is a beauty. You have to first enter a non-zero positive number before you can enter a negative number! But you can enter negative numbers and they have the proper effect for frames, rectangles and image files.

regards,

Peter

[Igor]

According Jean-Pierre suggestion, we can try develop one united system of sizes in next version to replace Fit and Cover modes. In true percents for width and height of parent/slide.

[fh1805]

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.

The problem can be demonstrated very simply by following these simple steps using beta 4:

File...New

Project Options...Screen...Fullscreen

Project Options...Screen...5:4 PC

Add an image file that is 1280x1024 (the size of my monitor)

Objects & Animations

Add a Frame as an independent object (not a child of the image)

Open the Size/Position window

Select the image file

Click on the Size hyperlink (the values are 1280 and 1024)

Select the Frame

The green box that shows the size of the frame is around the edge of the image. The frame appears to be 1280x1024

The values in the Size/Position window are still 1280x1024. The frame appears to be 1280x1024

Switch to the Properties tab

The frame size is (in my case) 10000x8000

Now click on the Size hyperlink (the values change to 10000x8000)

There can exist a point in time in the life of this frame when PTE thinks it is two different sizes. In the Size/Position window it thinks it is 1280x1024. In the Properties tab it thinks it is 10000x8000. If I do not change the Properties fields to be 1280x1024 then PTE, in different parts of its logic, will use different sizes when processing this frame and the end result willl be unpredictable from my point oif view. In order to get predictable behaviour I must first set the Frame size in the Properties tab to be 1280x1024.

Shouldn't PTE set the default frame size in the Properties tab to be the same as the Fullscreen resolution size? And because the Frame is just a special case of a Rectangle, the same problem occurs with rectangles?

The problem with Frames would be completely eradicated if the Frame was a transparent gif or png file instead of a zero opacity rectangle.

regards,

Peter

[JPD]

I made a proposal about this subject here, which could solve all problems.

[Igor]

I posted Beta 5 which fixes the bug with values in Size/Position tool window for Frame object.

[CorVdK]

Thank's Igor,

It looks good to me now. I did several tests with parent-childs, it's working as it should.

Tested also some complex old title effects with 19 various parent-childs and successive slides, all is appearing as before in version 5.52.

Congratulations again,

Greetings,

Cor

[Rickl]

Hi Igor.

This size and position business is way over my knowledge level and utility... My slideshows are much simpler, and they work fine...

But I would like to understand this issue with JPD and fh1805...

Davegee suggested I try this...

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.

I did this with beta 4, and it worked exactly as he experienced. But when I examined the Properties Tab in O&A, the size was 10000X8000.

So I downloaded B5 tonight and got the same results.

I tried something else tonight.

Same approach. Loaded the white 1280x1024 image. Clicked on O&A and size/position. Size = 1280x1024, and position 0,0.

Selected the Properties tab, and the size values size showed 10000X8000.

Now I clicked on Mask, again selected the white 1280X1024 image, and loaded it. It covered the orginal image on the top of the stack.

Selected Size and position, and it showed 1280X1024 and a position of 0,0. Right.

Then I clicked on the Position hyperlink, and it changed to 10000X8000 - the value shown in size values shown in the properties tab.

So am I right in assuming that the Size must be preset in the properties before clicking on the size hyperlink? That this is the way to set up the mask size?

Dick

[fh1805]

Dick,

What you describe in your post is exactly what I get, too. As you have seen, there are two pairs of fields that show the size (in pixels) of a Frame, Rectangle or Mask Container:

- the two fields in the Properties tab

- the two fields in the Size/Position window.

My concern is that there exists a point in time in the life of a Frame, Rectangle or Mask Container when these two fields show a different size for the frame, rectangle or mask container. An object cannot have two different sizes - it is an impossibility.

The values of the variables representing these fields will be used within the code of PTE to control the behaviour of these objects as we manipulate them in the O&A window. How can we predict with certainty what the effect of our manipulation will be when even PTE does not know with clarity, certainty and lack of ambiguity, the one true size of the object?

In my opinion, we no longer need the two fields in the Properties tab. The size (in pixels) of a frame, rectangle or mask container that we, as users, understand is correctly displayed in the Size/Position window. This should be the only place where this information is displayed and modified.

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

I think that we need to more fully understand what the information in front of us is actually telling us before making suggestions.

If you manually resize the frame created as I suggested, the figures change in the "Size/Position" but not in "Properties".

Why?

DaveG

[Igor]

There are two kinds of sizes:

- Native size (adjustable in Properties tab for Frame/Rectangle and non-adjustable for Images created in Photoshop);

- Visual size on the screen (Animation tab, Size/Position tool window).

Why we need to specify native size for Frame (in Properties tab)? Because it's possible to put another object to Frame. If you change only height of Frame it will stretch sizes of all embedded objects. If you change Native size it doesn't happen. See attached screenshot. Both Frames have same visual size, but different native size.

[xahu34]

Peter,

for each child object there are two sizes in the game: One size is its own absolute size (for a frame it is the one given in the Properties tab).

The second size (size/position window) refers to the embedding of the child into the context of its parent. The latter size depends on the embedding mode (fit or cover), the scaling, and of course of the absolute size of the parent. If the width of the parent would count in millions, the same would hold for the child's entry in the size/position window. If you enter the absolute pixel values of the child into the size/position window you will obtain an embedding which can be regarded as a replacement for the original mode of version 5.5.

This is what I already tried to indicate in post #16 of this thread.

Best regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

Thanks Igor and Xaver,

If I add a frame to a 16:10 blank project on my 1920x1200 monitor its size in "Size/Position" is 1920x1200 but its native size in Properties is 10000x6250.

No matter what the aspect ratio of the project is the Native Resolution (in Properties) is always going to be 10000xsomething (the height will depend on the aspect ratio).

To change the size of the frame I can grab a corner square and drag inwards etc. or I can alter its percentage value in Animations.

If I add a 1200 pixel high image to the frame its height in "Size/Position" will assume the height figures of its parent frame (in native resolution terms) i.e. 6250 Pixels High.

To change the appearance of the image within the frame I can use the grab handles or the zoom percentage figure in Animations.

50% Zoom will now show that the height in "Size/Position" is half of the Native Resolution Pixels of the Parent Frame i.e. 3125

I will continue this later.

Continued:

If I now add a 1200 pixel high Image to the Image as a child (does that make it the Grandchild of the Frame?) the grandchild assumes the pixel dimensions of ITS parent i.e. the 1200 height image in Native Resolution terms.

If the CHILD is zoomed to 50% (when the grandchild is added) the GRANDCHILD will appear at the same PHYSICAL size as the CHILD with its pixel size in “size/Position” showing as 1200 pixels high.

To get the GRANDCHILD back to 1200 pixels high (fill the height of the screen) change the zoom percentage in Animations to 200%.

Thanks both,

DaveG

[fh1805]

Igor/Xaver/DaveG,

Please have a look at the attached project file. Extract the zip contents and open the pte file into beta 5. Then do only the following, nothing else:

Select slide 2 in the slide list (white on black) and in the O&A window bring up the Size/Position window and observe the Position and Size values of the Black object (0,0 and 1280,1024) and of the white object (100,100 and 640,480) DO NOT CLICK ON POSITION OR SIZE HYPERLINKS

Select slide 1 in the slide list (white on blue) and observe the Position and Size values of the Frame (0,0 and 1280, 1024) and of the white object (100,100 and 640,480) DO NOT CLICK ON POSITION OR SIZE HYPERLINKS

What question is a new user of PTE going to ask immediately?:

He/she will think; I have set up two parent objects: one is a frame the other is a real image file. They have been set to the same size and position using the Size/Position window. I have added exactly the same image file as a child of both parents and have set the position and size of that child to identical values in both slides. He/she will ask: why are the two white images different sizes?

Is it unreasonable to expect the appearance of both slides to be the same? PTE thinks it is.

To my way of thinking, the outcome of setting up these two slides is totally confusing even for an experienced user of PTE. And the same confusion is going to arise if a rectangle or a mask container is used. These "virtual images" do not behave the same as a real image file. And yet, even experienced users can fall into the trap of thinking of them as real images.

If PTE is going to be a truly "intuitive" product to use then an object must behave in an identical manner no matter what kind of object it is. And right now the frame, rectrangle and mask container do not abide by this principle.

I am not saying that PTE is not working in accordance with its current design. I am saying that the current design is based on a principle that has a fundamental flaw in it. If I apply exactly the same processing to two different objects I do not get exactly the same outcome - and logically, I should!. This is inconsistent behaviour. It is not "intuitive".

regards,

Peter

Frames_Test_Oct31_2008_9_37_10.zip

[davegee]

Peter,

Something to consider:

When posting an example in this way your figures are never going to be the same as the viewer's figures because of screen resolution/aspect ratio differences.

For instance in your first line you mention the figures: (0,0 and 1280,1024) - on my screen (1920x1200) these are 0,0 1500,1200)

This makes it difficult to follow your argument /reasoning to say the least.

I will try.

DaveG

[davegee]

Peter,

Think of it this way (look at the Animations Screen):

In the first slide the White object is 6.4% of the Frame's Native Resolution i.e. 6.4% of 10000 by something.

In slide 2 the White object is is 50% of its parent images' resolution (1280x1024).

The above figures refer to my screen - they might differ on yours.

DaveG

[JPD]

Peter,

I see your example on a 1280 w 960 screen definition. The Size/position give for Size of frame 1200 x 960, that' OK for me, I understand why (it's the hight of my screen which give the value), and that also OK for White-640-480 the size indicated is 640 x 480, but :

I see that this picture is very small on screen, I search why : because of the zoom : 6.4%

The reason is that you have, as Igor explained to put the size of the frame at 1280 x 1024 (in your example) and it is 10000 xx 8000.

So with a 1280 x 1024 frame, when I put the right values in Size/position box, I have the right size on screen and the zoom is at 50% (480/960).

If we need to have always to put a parent at the nominal size we choice on each slide, why don't have the possibility to put these value only once time in screen option as I suggest in my proposal, it would easiest to understand for a beginner, easiest than explain to him that he must put the right frame in each slide.

[CorVdK]

Hello again,

I think there is a misunderstanding in the first and fundamental start of thinking in the dimensions relationship.

In "Project Options" - "Screen Options" there is the statement "Aspect Ratio of a slide" this must be in my oppinion "Aspect Ratio of the working screen" (see in O&A).

When you consider the right aspect ratio of your working screen and put a wanted value in the properties for the frame, you can easyly see what is happening with your child(s).

Cor

[fh1805]

Peter,

Something to consider:

When posting an example in this way your figures are never going to be the same as the viewer's figures because of screen resolution/aspect ratio differences.

For instance in your first line you mention the figures: (0,0 and 1280,1024) - on my screen (1920x1200) these are 0,0 1500,1200)

This makes it difficult to follow your argument /reasoning to say the least.

I will try.

DaveG

DaveG,

See my bold font in your quote above.

PTE is getting more and more complicated to use. It is taking longer and longer to learn how to use the new features. If Igor wants to continue to expand his user base, which I assume is one of his commercial objectives, then he needs to have a product which is easy to use, easy to learn and which produces the best image quality. My argument is not about the technical function of the product. It is about the inconsistency.

If I enter the same number values into the Position and Size fields for two objects, one on each of two slides; I expect the two slides to look the same on my system - they don't!

If I am led to believe that these numbers are absolute pixels then I expect the images should look the same on your monitor as they do on mine - and you say they don't!

This is not consistency of behaviour. This is not "intuitive" usage.

regards,

Peter

[fh1805]

Jean-Pierre,

You understand, mon ami !

As you say, the inconsistency is in having the frame take a default size of 10000x8000 as shown on the Properties tab. Yes, I know I can get the effect I want by keying in 1280 and 1024 into the fields on the Properties tab. But why do I have to? PTE knows my monitor resolution and it knows what aspect ratio I'm working at (as Cor points out in his post). Why cannot PTE set the frame size correctly automatically, so that 100% Zoom of the frame covers my chosen aspect ratio on my monitor? Why does anybody have to key anything in anywhere?

PTE already sets the size and position correctly for the "real image" files. Is it unreasonable for me to expect it to do the same with all the "virtual images"? Is it unreasonable for me to expect PTE to show consistent behaviour?

regards,

Peter

[JPD]

Peter, PTE could put as default value the screen definition or rather the size of format chosen on the current screen, but it would necessary to be abble to modify this value if we want for instance made a 1920 x 1080 slideshow and have a 1280 x 960 screen definition display (it's what I do to day with V5.52).

This value could be naturally in Screen options Window (where we define format in percent), it would be better to have this value in pixels rather in percent.

All this discussion show that PTE need to know nominal size for picture.

[CorVdK]

Jean-Pierre, Peter,

Yes we must have a value anyway to start with (in the frames properties). Maybe it is possible to show the aspect ratio (of the working screen) AND a starting value for the frame in properties?

Cor

[fh1805]

Jean-Pierre,

...if we want for instance made a 1920 x 1080 slideshow and have a 1280 x 960 screen definition display (it's what I do to day with V5.52)... All this discussion show that PTE need to know nominal size for picture.

Agreed. And this could be achieved by having two extra input fields, as you suggest. I propose they be associated with "Fullscreen". PTE could pre-fill them with the resolution of the detected monitor but the user could change them (using your example, to 1920x1080).

"Fullscreen" on its own has no meaning. It says nothing about the size of the actual screen.

And then PTE could use these two new values to set the initial size of any of the "virtual objects" - frames, rectangles and mask containers (instead of using the seemingly arbitrary 10000x8000 size).

Have we solved it?

regards,

Peter

[davegee]

Peter,

Still thinking about this.

Meanwhile I wonder if the meaning of Fullscreen on Project Options is being misunderstood.

To me it means that the EXE will play Fullscreen on ANY monitor - it is not referring to the resolution/aspect ratio of the monitor being used to construct the show.

It is where the chain of percentages starts - 100%, 50% 25% etc of the VIEWER's Screen - not the compiler's screen.

DaveG