Size/position in pixels of parent

[CorVdK]

Dave,

Fullscreen is also confusing, because if the slide show has a different aspect ratio as the monitor, it will only fit to the nearest aspect ratio, and not fill the screen completely, isn't it.

Cor

[JPD]

Yes Peter, we would do. Dave, that's exact it's not really full screen, it's the maximum area which can be used on a screen, it's always full height or full width, but not easy to find the right expression, may be Fit to screen, but I am not english and not sure it would be easiest to understand than full screen is.

Fit to screen is what I used in my proposal.

[davegee]

JP,

FULLSCREEN is probably the best description, if you understand the concept that on a screen with an aspect ratio different to the original aspect ratio it will either FIT TO WIDTH or FIT TO HEIGHT.

I would not want that changed.

I am happy with it.

In fact I am happy with 5.6 the way it is - all that is necessary is a USER's MANUAL that explains it correctly in the simplest of terminology.

Igor's statement is a VERY important document and should be read VERY carefully. If it is accepted then I see a way forward for everyone and any obvious problems can be sorted as they arise in a orderly manner.

As it is now the "Tail is trying to wag the dog" - do you have a similar saying?

"c'est une petite minorite qui se fait obeir" (?).

DaveG

[Rickl]

Dear Igor, Xaver, and all,

Not sure, but I think the fog is lifting.

Frames, masks rectangle have a default size - In Igor's terms a native size. When added to a slide they appear in their native size - BUT are compressed to fit the selected screen size. eg. with a 5:4 screen, 1280X1024 the frame for example, at it's 10000X8000 default frame size is compressed to fill the entire 1280X1024 screen. Size - 1280x1024 - position 0,0.

But that does not change it's native size which is 10000x8000!

Now add an child image 1024x768 for example. PTE now changes the size of the image as it appears relative to the 10000x8000 frame! So it compresses the 1024x768 image smaller in its new 10000x8000 frame environment. (not 1280x1024 environment)

That is why adding Peter's 1600x1200 image to what I thought was a 1280x1024 frame resulted in a reduction of the image size. I was thinking that putting a 1600x1200 image in a 1280x1024 frame would crop or resize downward. But no! The 1600x1200 image was really being dropped into a 10000x8000 frame, (so the image was reduced in size) and then the 10000x8000 frame plus its 1024x768 child image were then compressed to fill available 1280x1024 screen!

Phew. I think I will let Igor get on with his work without nattering from me with more silly questions...

Thanks all for clearing this up.

Now I'll go back and test these assumptions.

Dick

[fh1805]

I would be content to leave it as FULLSCREEN; but is BEST FIT a more accurate name for it in English?

And it occurs to me that there are actually two nominal sizes involved in this discussion, are there not?

- the nominal size at which the sequence is being assembled

- the nominal size at which the sequence is going to playback

As creators of our sequences we can directly control only the first. For this we need the two input fields already discussed by Jean-Pierre and myself. The nominal size at playback has to be calculated by PTE based upon 1) the information we supplied during the build and 2) the actual resolution of the monitor used for playback.

Any solution has to take that into account, surely?

regards

Peter

[fh1805]

Dick,

You seem to have understood the principle that is giving rise to this perceived problem.

regards,

Peter

[CorVdK]

As a regular translator in Dutch of PTE, an option could be, to change "Fullscreen" in "Screen mode" and leave the "Windowed mode" (the second option).

Cor

[JPD]

"Tail is trying to wag the dog"

"c'est une petite minorité qui se fait obéir"

May be a tail, but a tail which make many slideshows have a look here or here, you'll see that the minority, as you say, works a lot, there are more slideshows on each page than on Beechbrook.

When I write, it's not only myself who write but a lot of people of Diapositif, and generally those of Diaporamaforum agree with me, it's not a little minority, sorry.

Have you really try to understand my proposal, probably no when I read you. I only try to make PTE more useful, that's all.

I don't know if you saw my slideshow, but with V5.6 I am enable to day to do the same. Look for instance at this one I did to test V5 beta 5, imagine how it be done and imagine if you could do that today.

[davegee]

JP,

I truly respect your work, one day I hope to produce work which is just HALF as good!!

I repeat what I have said elsewhere - Igor's statement was VERY important and I am prepared to change my method of working if it means that he can produce a better product.

DaveG

[JPD]

JP,

I truly respect your work, one day I hope to produce work which is just HALF as good!!

I repeat what I have said elsewhere - Igor's statement was VERY important and I am prepared to change my method of working if it means that he can produce a better product.

DaveG

PTE has the best alogorithm to resize and make smooth effect, it's quite normal that in such complex program, there are sometimes some points which aren't see in the same way by the team who make the product as by those who test and use each day the product. Would it be corrrect I don't say anything, as you I think PTE is a good product, but if we lose an important possibility it's quite normal to give an opinion, mine is exactly the same since august 25th.

There are no problem for me to change the method to work, it's one when I can't do what I could.

[xahu34]

Igor/Xaver/DaveG,

Please have a look at the attached project file....

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

...why are the two white images different sizes...

...Is it unreasonable to expect the appearance of both slides to be the same...

...If PTE is going to be a truly "intuitive" product to use ...

Hello Peter,

I cannot see anything unreasonable in your sequence. It behaves as it should do. Maybe that a new user not having my personal mathematical background will have other feelings, at least at first sight. But this cannot be avoided, provided that we will not cancel the size/position tool (I actually like it). So, the situation is, as it is now; we cannot change it!

I think that the size/position tool has been made for users who think in pixels, and who want to embed child objects into their parents in terms of pixels, although the internal representation of the embedding functions may now be based exclusively on percents (who really knows what happens inside of PTE?).

Again: The size/position tool is just a new tool which helps pixel oriented users to get rid of some calculations. We have the same situation as ever, provided that (in the past) we did not use original mode.

A new user should perhaps avoid the size/position tool. If you look for the white image (of your example) in the animation tab at the zoom values (6.400% and 50.000%) it should be pretty clear why the white image is of different size in the two slides.

So let me claim: The concept provided by WnSoft may not be satisfactory for JPD and his friends who heavily used original mode (I'm really sorry about that), but the concept itself seems to be sound and consistent.

What I do not like very much is the fact, that the relationship between child and parent typically is project dependent, but not for top level objects. Here the parent is the screen which is system dependent, see my remark here.

The size/position tool itself needs to be endowed with a good documentation!

I do not feel myself in the position to answer in general the question if PTE is an intuitive product. For me, it is!

Best regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

Elegantly put Xaver,

If the top level is a blank image with zero opacity (something like JP's Cale) then then percieved problem with "inconsistencies" in the display of pixel sizes no longer exists.

The only remaining problem to my way of thinking is the TV Safe Zone and how to easily achieve it.

I am tempted to suggest that all those who burn DVDs build it in right from the start but that would probably not please everyone.

DaveG

[d67]

I do not feel myself in the position to answer in general the question if PTE is an intuitive product. For me, it is!

..... You're then a poor lonesome cowboy

PTE V5 intuitive ! ... the best joke of the year !

I have to suppose that

- the numerous demands of a good help manual

- the thread "How to make PicturesToExe more simple and intuitive?" initiated by Igor himself

- the numerous rantings (outburts) about the softwares's opacity here and there in the PTE dedicated forums (english or french)

are there to attest it is an intuitive software

.... really, PTE V5 intuitive, the best joke of the year !

Patrick

[JPD]

All the discussion about this box make every body forget the initial Igor's question :

We think that "Original size" mode brings a lot of problems:

For authors and viewers:

- If you create a slide with several objects that all have "Original size" mode, these objects won't be correctly placed at different screen resolutions.

- Impossible to correctly export slideshow for DVD, Youtube, iPhone, because of lower video file resolution (480 x 320) - all objects will be shown incorrectly.

For us as developers:

- The more and more difficult to support it with all new added features. It vastly complicates the code of PicturesToExe.

What you think?

Some agree because they don't use original mode, others don't agree because they use original mode without the inconvenients Igor explained.

I made suggestions in order everybody can work as before, even better for everybody, because no problem to made a DVD, no problem with the not exactly resize of picture with the format on screen and only one algorithm to use and not possibility to have for users problem explain about original mode object.

Before Igor's decision, everybody was happy with the tool for these functions, why not keep a similar way to use PTE, it's possible.

I won't answer on this topic, only on the original one where is the real question and the answers for a good solution.

[xahu34]

Peter,

let me add an example to my post #61 from above:

- Run your project "Frames-Test.pte" from the attachment in your post #40 (this thread) under v.5.5

- Set the zoom values of the white image to "100" (in both cases)

- Set the mode for the white image to "Original" (in both cases)

This modified project will show the same effect: the two white images again have different sizes; the new show seems visually to be the same as the old one. Thus, the size/position tool achieves a kind of replacement for original mode (surely not in the sense of Jean-Pierre).

Best regards,

Xaver

[xahu34]

... why not keep a similar way to use PTE, it's possible.

... I won't answer on this topic, only on the original one where is the real question and the answers for a good solution.

Hello Jean-Pierre,

let me make a final remark on your solution. For me, PTE is a black box. I know its interfaces, how to insert images, how to configure transitions, how to set animation parameters. Furthermore I can look at PTE's output, the preview or an exe-file (I do not use the video stuff). This is what I see, and that's all. I think that your solution would have substantial effects on the internal structure of the PTE software, which is invisible for me as a user. Even if I could look at the design specifications and the source code, this would not help. I am not a software developer with experience in graphics applications.

So I do not feel myself in the position to make any substantial remark on your solution. I'm sorry about that, and I would very glad if future versions of PTE would serve your demands.

Best regards,

Xaver

[fh1805]

I have more than had my say on this subject and failed to convince any of you that PTE is behaving inconsistently. The "virtual objects" in the classes: frames, rectangles and mask containers require an extra interaction via the Size fields on the Common tab in order to achieve identical results to the "real objects" in classes: image files.

Nobody but me seems to regard this inconsistency as an inconsistency.

As the debate has progressed my understanding of my root concern has clarified. This has nothing to do with Original mode, it has nothing to do with the Size/Position window, it has nothing to do with JPDs proposals. It is about a lack of consistency on the part of PTE.

During the various debates, I have formed the impression that JPD is an excellent mathematician. I believe that some of the WnSoft programmers are also excellent mathematicians. As mathematicians I make this final plea to you. Which is true?:

- object equal object ...or...

- object not equal object

PTE's current behaviour says both are true.

As I am unable to get any support for my view I withdraw from this debate. Further debate will serve no useful purpose. Please, everybody, go back to debating either points of detail or complex mathematical solutions to serious problems. Fundamental things like making PTE easy for new users seems to be unimportant to you all. But remember this, if there are no new users then PTE becomes the plaything of an ageing population and as that population dies then so does PTE!

regards,

Peter

P.S. It is only this debate I withdraw from. Not my participation on this forum. But it may be some time before I offer any of my thoughts for future improvement to PTE (My list currently stands at 11 items which I, or others, have mentioned at various times this past year. I'm waiting to see whether any get included in v5.6 later in the beta programme)

[hlion]

Nobody but me seems to regard this inconsistency as an inconsistency.

As I am unable to get any support for my view I withdraw from this debate.

regards,

Peter

Please, please, please, Peter...stay online ! We need you ! You did an excellent job in helping everyone with your explanations and as a relay of the proposal by JPD.

I am convinced that Igor and his team will realise how lucky they are to get someone like JPD offering them a very intelligent way of getting PTE to become a real universal tool and far above any competitors.

For people who do not use orinal mode and size/resize positiooning, they could use Microsoft Powerpoint...and won't see any diffrenece with what they are presently getting out with PTE.

For all others we need to keep asking Igor to integrate JPD's ideas and ther your help is of paramount importance.

Thanks to you,

Regards,

Henri

[davegee]

Henri,

I too, am saddened by Peter's decision.

I used Original Mode 100% in previous versions but I see nothing in 5.6 which will change the end result of what I use PTE for.

What will change is the methodology I use to achieve it.

I believe that original mode can still be achieve in 5.6 - it is just the HOW that has changed.

I also believe that the way forward depends on the answer to just one question to Igor:

Can he provide us with the means to GLOBALLY change the percentage value of a first level object? This would solve the TV Safe Zone problem. Adding an object which is equal in resolution to the compiler's screen resolution at the first level (above the background) and setting its opacity to zero allows it to be used as a parent for the whole slide. If Igor can provide the means to globally change the percentage value of this first level object (in Project Options for instance) then the whole project can be reduced by a fixed amount to allow for TV Safe Zone.

Problem solved?

DaveG

[d67]

For people who do not use orinal mode and size/resize positiooning, they could use Microsoft Powerpoint...and won't see any diffrenece with what they are presently getting out with PTE.

Hi Henri

Why so disdainful for Powerpoint users ?

While this vast community creates slideshows without any ulterior motive and apprehension to show their images, a microscopic group spends his time to unravel a sofware that has become, due to mercantile reasons, incomprehensible for the ordinary mortals!

Without any restrictions, I find that both types of users are equally worthy of interest

Patrick

[AnKo]

Hello all,

I am following this discusion from the start, because it's about a fundemental issue of PTE. And NO, I do not have the time to study all the explenations from JPD and others, so normaly I would not have mixed up in this discussion. But I dont like the way and the tone of this discussion at this stage. Therefore I believe Igor and his team need to make a discision on this matter as soon as possible to take the cold out of the air. All of us, with or without the knowledge of resolutions as in this discussion, want the best for PTE. So lets take all remarks serious without damaging any of us forummembers.

When I make a slideshow in PTE I expect the output to be exactly as I made it. WYSIWYG. So after telling PTE what kind of output I want, PTE should just do its work and that's it. PTE should make an .exe work on all screens, and PTE should not cut off my work when making a DVD. And I do not want to get through a million options while considering which to choose to get a correct output, keeping in mind that this and that .... PTE should do just that for me.

More options means less intuitive. More options means more user UNfriendly. More options means higher knowledge of PTE. More options means better hardware.

For me, the power of PTE was it's intuitive interface and the fairly simple way to produce nice slideshows. Keep it that way. That sounds easy, but I am sure many options could be build in the software without any interferance of the user. I prefer to wait a year for this kind of development, instead of being confronted with new features every 3 or 4 months and learning that PTE has changed it's whole interface just to realize them, bringing needless confusion and discusion. More is not always better!

Igor and his team should make a discision which direction to go: quality or quantity. Now, it always was quality. But with new features like making youtube and iphone video PTE will soon be a product for a large marked of people who are not AV freaks like we are. And that is not the audience Wnsoft pointed its market strategy on at the start.

I wish Wnsoft good thoughts.

André

[davegee]

I think I have answered my own question to Igor.

If I use "% of slide to show main image" I can change the Main image (Parent) from 100% to 90% at any time during or after the creation of the project to create a "TV Safe Zone".

If the main image is always used as the Parent to ALL subsequent additions all of the children will be reduced proportionately.

I have tried to create projects with the percieved inaccuracies brought about by the loss of ORIGINAL MODE and failed.

I don't see a problem with 5.6.

Andre,

All of my trials will work on ANY resolution monitor and what I have written above will ensure that nothing is cut off when making a DVD.

DaveG

[photosalmon]

I think I have answered my own question to Igor.

If I use "% of slide to show main image" I can change the Main image (Parent) from 100% to 90% at any time during or after the creation of the project to create a "TV Safe Zone".

If the main image is always used as the Parent to ALL subsequent additions all of the children will be reduced proportionately.

DaveG

this solution suppose that main image is allways 100% (or 90 % for DVD), it is not possible to zoom or pan this image...

a virtual main image as parent at 100% of the format we choose in projects/screen options seems the best solution