PicturesToExe Deluxe 5.6 Beta 13

[Igor]

AbdolReza,

Thanks, I've reproduced this problem with your project. It will be fixed in next Beta 14.

Ray,

I fear the new Project Options/ Screen menu will cause some confusion. It is not obvious what 'virtual size of slides' and 'fixed size of slides' means, or its purpose.

- "Virtual size of a slide" was a suggestion of Jean-Pierre. I implemented it for correct work of Size/Position tool window in Objects and animation editor.

- "Fixed size of slide (in pixels)" means, that slide will utilize exactly specified width/height on the screen.

[xahu34]

... It is not obvious what 'virtual size of slides' ... means, or its purpose.

Ray,

If you program a sequence using the Size/Position tool, you place the objects relative to the seize of their parents (in pixels). But what should be the parent of a top-level object? Should it be the actual monitor? What to do if you program the sequence on a notebook having a screen with 1024x768 pixels, but want to run it later using a projector with 1920x1080 pixels. Using the virtual size you can work with the notebook and place objects as if it had a 1920x1080 screen.

Regards,

Xaver

Munich

[JPD]

- "Virtual size of a slide" was a suggestion of Jean-Pierre. I implemented it for correct work of Size/Position tool window in Objects and animation editor.

- "Fixed size of slide (in pixels)" means, that slide will utilize exactly specified width/height on the screen.

I also propose "Workspace" like in Photoshop, maybe it would be better, because it's really the workspace inside of which you put your pictures.

What do you think for this name ? (In french it's "Espace de travail", not sure of my english translation).

[sanewcomb]

Beta 13 Create function locked up Windows handles, prevents all other programs from displaying windows

To me this falls into the catagory of more severe program errors for the 5.6 betas as I mentioned in a recent post. I downloaded the Beta 13 and opened a project made primarily with Beta 7. Tweaked a few settings, added a couple of keypoints to one slide, and changed the slide duration on 2 slides. I selected Create As function from the menu and made a low res version of this project (it uses 1280x1024 images instead of full size). This created an EXE file fine. Saved the .pte file. Then I opened an almost identical .pte project file, except for high res photos. Copied the full size files into the directories the project file uses. Did the same tweaks, then the Create As function, and P2E program went on its way to create the EXE file. It takes longer to make EXE files than before. When it got to 100% it stopped, or at least stopped updating the window. Did not hear the click audio indicating file was finished, but it may have played. At this time Windows itself stopped updating any window. Could not even see the TaskManager window, which normally over rides all other windows. I could see the smaller task manager window when doing CTRL-ALT-DEL, but still would not display the main task manager window. I noticed that the windows Taskbar would shift from program to program, so I started closing programs using Alt-F4. When I got to P2E, it closed ok and then the windows of other programs began to display. System returned to normal after closing P2E. It did create the EXE file and that file was ok. Seems to be related to windows handles and not taking enough care of them during internal P2E functions.

By the way, has anyone else noticed the Create EXE function takes much longer to create the EXE files than before? It is significantly longer on my machine, but I'm not sure what 5.x version the change took place.

Sincerely,

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA

[Ray Groome]

Ray,

If you program a sequence using the Size/Position tool, you place the objects relative to the seize of their parents (in pixels). But what should be the parent of a top-level object? Should it be the actual monitor? What to do if you program the sequence on a notebook having a screen with 1024x768 pixels, but want to run it later using a projector with 1920x1080 pixels. Using the virtual size you can work with the notebook and place objects as if it had a 1920x1080 screen.

Regards,

Xaver

Munich

Thank you for your prompt reply. If the purpose of this data is to enable you to simulate the appearance when projected on a different screen, wouldn't it be simpler to just specify the aspect ratio of that screen?

Ray Groome

[xahu34]

.... If the purpose of this data is to enable you to simulate the appearance when projected on a different screen, wouldn't it be simpler to just specify the aspect ratio of that screen ....

Ray,

It is not only the aspect ratio but also the size in pixels which matters when you use the Position/Size tool. Looking at my example (notebook 1024x768): If you choose an aspect ratio of 16/9, you obtain an array of pixels of size 1024x576. With the first version of the Position/Size tool the top level objects had to be placed with respect to this array. The virtual size allows you to work with the Position/Size tool in an array of a user defined size (e.g. 1920x1080). On the notebook itself this may not have any effect, but perhaps when the show runs via the projector. Furthermore, using virtual size, programming sequences with the Position/Size tool becomes independent of the screen resolution you are actually working with.

Regards,

Xaver

Munich

[kosheyar]

Beta 13 Create function locked up Windows handles, prevents all other programs from displaying windows

To me this falls into the catagory of more severe program errors for the 5.6 betas as I mentioned in a recent post. I downloaded the Beta 13 and opened a project made primarily with Beta 7. Tweaked a few settings, added a couple of keypoints to one slide, and changed the slide duration on 2 slides. I selected Create As function from the menu and made a low res version of this project (it uses 1280x1024 images instead of full size). This created an EXE file fine. Saved the .pte file. Then I opened an almost identical .pte project file, except for high res photos. Copied the full size files into the directories the project file uses. Did the same tweaks, then the Create As function, and P2E program went on its way to create the EXE file. It takes longer to make EXE files than before. When it got to 100% it stopped, or at least stopped updating the window. Did not hear the click audio indicating file was finished, but it may have played. At this time Windows itself stopped updating any window. Could not even see the TaskManager window, which normally over rides all other windows. I could see the smaller task manager window when doing CTRL-ALT-DEL, but still would not display the main task manager window. I noticed that the windows Taskbar would shift from program to program, so I started closing programs using Alt-F4. When I got to P2E, it closed ok and then the windows of other programs began to display. System returned to normal after closing P2E. It did create the EXE file and that file was ok. Seems to be related to windows handles and not taking enough care of them during internal P2E functions.

By the way, has anyone else noticed the Create EXE function takes much longer to create the EXE files than before? It is significantly longer on my machine, but I'm not sure what 5.x version the change took place.

Sincerely,

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA

You're Right . In fact , I must to say . PTE , is the best producted to weaken cpu in the Web .

Cpu source in pte v.4.48 was very down , but The volume of project.exe by pte v.5.6 beta13 is about 20-30 kb (for 8 slide with 700*500 )

mre than project.exe made by pte v.5.5 , it is not suitable , you think if for 8 slide uses 20-30 kb,

then the volume for 10000slide are increasing : 10000 * 30 = 300000kb

Does Igor sure , it was a best updated for PTE v.4.48 ? I think this is a best tools for destroying Cpu Source ,

Since i used PTE , i remodel two Cpu yet , i think Pte is no guaranteed .

[fh1805]

Just to ensure that any further discussion on the subject of PTE code size is based on solid facts, I've just created a sequence comprising a single Black Slide and no music. Using PTE v4.49 the exe file was 288K; using PTE V5.52 the exe file was 324K and using v5.6 beta12 it was 342K. That is just 54K of code increase from v4.49 to v5.6. And for that we get all the wonderfully rich features of Pan, Zoom, Rotate as well as all those fantastic transition effects including the 3D ones.

The size of the final exe is dictated by the following factors:

- the music files (if WAV then expect around 10MB per minute; if MP3 then expect around 1MB per minute)

- the image files (suitably sized 1024x768 files will be of the order 150KB-250KB each; suitably sized 1920x1200 files will be of the order 425KB-525KB each)

The PTE overhead, in comparison, is miniscule.

Just to complete the statistical analysis: the PTE project file itself contained 196 lines of code in v4.49, 228 lines of code in v5.52 and 230 lines of code in v5.6 beta12. So, yes, the pte file is getting more complex. But we must expect that. We cannot have all the new function without an increase in the complexity of the software and the project file.

In response to Steve Newcomb's comment about it taking longer to Create exe's. I haven't noticed this. Steve, are your new sound files the same format (and therefore a similar size) as the older ones? Are your new image files of a comparable size to your older ones? Are the new sequences of comparable running time and complexity compared to the older ones? Is the background activity in your PC (firewall, anti-virus, etc.) the same as it was in days gone by?

It is easy to point the accusatory finger at new software when, in fact, we have overlooked a more fundamental change in our own methods and/or material.

regards,

Peter

[sanewcomb]

In response to Steve Newcomb's comment about it taking longer to Create exe's. I haven't noticed this.

It is good to hear some people have the same times. I used to hear the click almost as soon as I hit the button, but now it takes many minutes to make a 100 slide show with lots of animation. I have also noticed a large increase in the time it takes to start the program, or rather load up the previous project to start working on it. The thumbnails take more time to load both on the slide line and the explorer type file window. But both of these are more observations than complaints. I don't do either activity that much relative to working on the shows and I do support adding features to the program over time.

Steve, are your new sound files the same format (and therefore a similar size) as the older ones? Are your new image files of a comparable size to your older ones? Are the new sequences of comparable running time and complexity compared to the older ones? Is the background activity in your PC (firewall, anti-virus, etc.) the same as it was in days gone by?

For the most part I would say yes. The image files are identical (same camera), the music files are MP3s of 128k and 198k, and the PC is configured the same. One possible difference that may explain the slowdown on my machine is the free space on the harddrives (I have 4 drives, 5 partitions) is most likely less than before, although that fluctuates. What I should do is pull out an old version of P2E 5.x and compile a show to see if it does it as fast as I remember. Could be a memory problem (internal) as well!

It is easy to point the accusatory finger at new software when, in fact, we have overlooked a more fundamental change in our own methods and/or material.

Good point and true enough.

Thanks for your input Peter.

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA

P.S. I don't have any issue with P2E's code size (it's amazingly small) or CPU use, particularly relative to any other program. My observations were based on previous versions of P2E, and my perceived loss of some "wow" moments while using it. Even the amount of time it takes to do these specific tasks (on my machine) is acceptable for making the slideshows. I'll look closer at my machine to see if the harddrive situation is causing the delays.

[Igor]

Steve,

Please try Create function with newest Beta 14. If the problem still exists, please let me know:

1) How often it happens (rarely, often, always)?

2) Particular projects or all?

Thanks in advance.

[fh1805]

Steve,

Do other files take longer to open as well e.g. Word, Excel, images into Photoshop? If so, it could be something like anti-virus checks. Just a thought!

regards,

Peter

[sanewcomb]

.....The thumbnails take more time to load both on the slide line ....

After further observations I'm pretty sure the thumbnails on the slide line do take longer to load and this is most likely due to the miniviewer or whatever it is called. On slides that have complex animations and multiple files, the thumbnail takes noticeably more time than simple slides.

This is not a complaint, though maybe if the thumbnails themselves were cached it would speed up reopening of projects (on a side note, I can't believe IrfanView still does not cache thumbnails). Not a major item and it should be put near the bottom of the list of things to do, to be looked at in free time (if there ever is free time at WnSoft!).

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA

[sanewcomb]

Do other files take longer to open as well e.g. Word, Excel, images into Photoshop? If so, it could be something like anti-virus checks. Just a thought!

Peter,

I'm quite sure it's not an anti-virus check problem. But some of the slowness I'm observing is probably due to a "long" installation of Win XP and hard drives that are fuller than they should be for optimal performance. By long I mean it has been some years since it was installed, with inumeral programs (mostly small shareware, but they still add up) installed and removed. The Registry is now over 7MB and I have a reinstall scheduled that should clear most of this up, as well as freeing up more disk space.

Thanks for the thought.

Steve Newcomb

Tucson, AZ USA