PTE screen settings vs. monitor size

[LumenLux]

During the course of making my recently posted Havasupai, (topic here) I purchased a larger monitor. So midway in making the pte project, I decided to size my files to 1600x1200, instead of my customary 1024x768. I thought the larger file photos looked wonderful, but I soon realized how huge the .exe file was destined to be. At that point it was over 600 mb! I realize that would be fine for my in-house use, but not likely to be very "shareable". My "conclusion", if not a "solution", was to revert and make a version @ 1024x768 which I have posted, and even that is 155mb, but presumably a little more accessible to a broader audience.

The essence of my question is - Those of you who are using larger monitors, how are you dealing with the situation? Is anyone using PTE's window mode? Is my understanding correct, that such use would dictate that a 1024x768 show would not be clarity-degraded by watching it on a monitor set at 1600x1200, or 1920x1200, etc.? Alternatively, if I use default full-screen mode at 1024x768 and you watch it on your 1920x1200 or larger monitor, do you have anyway to know that you are seeing a larger but less beautiful image than I saw?

In other cases, where total file size of .exe file is not a concern, is there any situation where a 1600x1200, viewed on a 1024x768, will be less desirable than a 1024x768 when viewed on a 1024x768?

What are your other considerations?

Oh, and one more: If using an older projector with 800x600 resolution. Does the projected image get less quality as file sizes get larger and larger?

[davegee]

Work to the size (resolution) of YOUR monitor's native maximum resolution.

Quality 10 images - 8 if you feel that nothing has been lost.

Fullscreen show - with Size of Slide set to your monitor resolution with Fixed Size of Slide ticked.

Your show will Fit to Screen on all monitors "smaller" than yours and will maintain the set size on all monitors "larger" than yours.

DaveG

[Ken Cox]

ROBERT

the specs of monitor might help others considering a change

ken

[Conflow]

Lumenlux.

Robert,

In theory you would be correct when you talk about 'nil clarity-degradation' (viz-a-viz) 1600x1200 versus 1024x768.

There should be no-degradation when using modern LCD and Plasma Screens within size limits.....that's in theory!

Problem being that we all use JPegs and these are Compressed-Images where each Image is made of a vast lattice

comprising thousands of small XbyX.Bit Squares which are bordered with a 'Boundary' pulse.

Because the Compressed 'Data-Structure' is set for all time with the 'Save-As' command there is only so much you

can blow-up any Image before it starts to pixellate and becomes visible as an artifact. The bigger the origional Image

the less the effect ~ but that beggers the problem of trying to fit a large Image into a reasonable sized Monitor Screen.

Unfortunately we have reached the limits of JPeg-Technology (as we know it) and most Photo-Research Institutes have been

in the process of developing 'Motion & Vectored Graphic Imagery' for the past few years. The 'big-problem' is how do we

make a 'bridge' between JPeg-Technology and Vectored-Graphics....that's the hard one. It has to be 'cracked' otherwise the

Photo-Industry would loose Billions of Investment-Funds tied up in current JPeg-Technology.

Its also very nice to see that Igor and the WnSoft Team are actually working on Vectored-Graphics ~ but it will take time.

The "Attachments" below titled:- Card-10, 11, 12, 13 will show what I'm talking about ~ Note Card-13.

Hope this gives a little insight into JPegs 'degradation and what's happening with the expanded data bits.

Brian.Conflow.

[tc_leeds]

Lumenlux.

Robert,

In theory you would be correct when you talk about 'nil clarity-degradation' (viz-a-viz) 1600x1200 versus 1024x768.

There should be no-degradation when using modern LCD and Plasma Screens within size limits.....that's in theory!

Problem being that we all use JPegs and these are Compressed-Images where each Image is made of a vast lattice

comprising thousands of small XbyX.Bit Squares which are bordered with a 'Boundary' pulse.

Because the Compressed 'Data-Structure' is set for all time with the 'Save-As' command there is only so much you

can blow-up any Image before it starts to pixellate and becomes visible as an artifact. The bigger the origional Image

the less the effect ~ but that beggers the problem of trying to fit a large Image into a reasonable sized Monitor Screen.

Unfortunately we have reached the limits of JPeg-Technology (as we know it) and most Photo-Research Institutes have been

in the process of developing 'Motion & Vectored Graphic Imagery' for the past few years. The 'big-problem' is how do we

make a 'bridge' between JPeg-Technology and Vectored-Graphics....that's the hard one. It has to be 'cracked' otherwise the

Photo-Industry would loose Billions of Investment-Funds tied up in current JPeg-Technology.

Its also very nice to see that Igor and the WnSoft Team are actually working on Vectored-Graphics ~ but it will take time.

The "Attachments" below titled:- Card-10, 11, 12, 13 will show what I'm talking about ~ Note Card-13.

Hope this gives a little insight into JPegs 'degradation and what's happening with the expanded data bits.

Brian.Conflow.

Brian,

Perhaps it may be possible to extend this discussion to include digital projectors. Our club has recently purchased a Canon SX60 which has a resolution of 1400 x 1050 and my understanding of the "Virtual Size Of Slide" in PTE Project Options>Screen tab allows larger images to be placed into PTE5.6 but with a preset size for actual viewing/showing. In other words it appears that shows can be created at 1024 x 768 from the project file today using images which are say, 2560 x 1920 but are future proofed by re-creating the show from the project file at a future date by increasing the preset "Virtual Size Of Slide" thus creating the same show giving full screen presentation when using a higher resolution projector/screen. Obviously aspect ratio will have to be the same if a full screen image is to be projected (4:3). Have I got this right?

Tony

[davegee]

Tony,

You can, for instance on a 1920x1200 monitor, work with 1920x1200 images and use Fullscreen 16:10 settings and tick the Fixed Size of slide.

On monitors with resolutions "smaller" than 1920x1200 the EXE will "Fit to Screen".

On monitors "larger" than 1920x1200 the EXE will maintain the 1920x1200 format.

If your PC/Laptop monitor resolution = Projector Resolution then that's what you will see on screen.

To avoid interpolation/degredation the best scenario is:

Projector Resolution = PC/Laptop Native Resolution = Image Size.

DaveG

[tc_leeds]

Tony,

You can, for instance on a 1920x1200 monitor, work with 1920x1200 images and use Fullscreen 16:10 settings and tick the Fixed Size of slide.

On monitors with resolutions "smaller" than 1920x1200 the EXE will "Fit to Screen".

On monitors "larger" than 1920x1200 the EXE will maintain the 1920x1200 format.

If your PC/Laptop monitor resolution = Projector Resolution then that's what you will see on screen.

To avoid interpolation/degredation the best scenario is:

Projector Resolution = PC/Laptop Native Resolution = Image Size.

DaveG

Hi Dave,

Thanks for the response. My question really I suppose is to do with the quality of the images if projected with a higher resolution projector. For example if a 1024 X 768 sequence is projected using a 1400 x 1050 projector the images it may be resized but there will be some degredation or, does it leave a black border around the projected images?. However, if the sequence is re-created in PTE5.6 using the "Virtual Size Of Slide" at 1400 x 1050 will the quality be maintained and full screen images projected?

If the "Virtual Size Of Slide" is not for this purpose, what is it's function?

We project several sequences in a show and therefore need consistency in the way the sequences are created. We do not want to see some sequences with black borders all the way round and others filling the screen.

Hope this all makes sense.

Tony

[davegee]

Tony,

The 1024x768 and 1400x1050 formats are both 4:3 aspect ratio so no black borders will show if the 1024x768 show is upsized to fit the 1400x1050 projector, but some degredation, however small, will take place.

If, as in my example, the 1920x1200 show is projected on the 1400x1050 then black bands will show at the top and bottom.

IMHO, in todays scenario with a probable (?) majority of people using DSLRs in photo clubs, the 4:3 aspect ratio is a thing of the past.

The 16:9 aspect ratio projectors (1920x1080) are MUCH more beneficial to photographers in photo clubs and the sooner they are adopted on a wider scale than now the happier I will be.

DaveG

[fh1805]

Tony,

My understanding, which may be flawed, is that the projector is simply cloning what the monitor is displaying. So the questions that you really need to answer are:

- how does a PTE sequence built to 1024x768 appear when played on a 1400x1050 monitor?

- how does a PTE sequence built to 1920x1200 appear when played on a 1400x1050 monitor?

Those two tests will demonstrate what happens when you run an "undersize" sequence and an "oversize" sequence. Once you know what happens on the monitor, then you can connect the projector and verify that the behaviour is the same (I think it should be).

And I think the answer to the first two questions is going to have to include a lot of "it depends...". For example:

- it depends on which version of PTE has been used to do the build

- it depends on which settings have been chosen in Project Options...Screen tab

We all must realise that the world has changed radically over the last four-five years. It used to be the case that the standard resolution for PC monitors was 1024x768 and that the standard resolution for projectors was 1024x768 and that the default resolution in PTE was 1024x768. Life was easy; everything was the same - and it all worked predictably.

Now we have no standard resolution for PC monitors; they come in all shapes and sizes as the plethora of aspect ratios shows (4:3, 5:4, 15;10, 16:9, etc.). Nor is there any standardisation in the projectors, as yet. You can choose from: 1024x768, 1400x1050, 1920x1200, etc.

And in PTE v5.6 you can choose from a wealth of settings under Project Options...Screen tab.

The only "simple" facts, as I understand them, are:

- PTE will "up-sample" a small sized sequence to fit on a larger monitor (I build to 1024x768 on a 1280x1024 monitor so I know that this happens). But that sequence should project at its stated resolution of 1024x768 through the projector. Unless the projector has menu setings that have told it to "up-size" a small image.

- PTE will "down-sample" an over-size sequence to fit on the monitor; and will maintain pretty good visual quality whilst it does it (I have tested this by building a 1920x1200 sequence on my 1280x1024 monitor)

In that latter case, the 1024x768 projector then "down-sizes" the sequence when I project it. Over a short throw projecting at home I do not see any visual degradation. What it would be like over a long throw on to a large screen in a hall I do not know.

There are just too many damned variables now!

regards,

Peter

[Conflow]

Peter,

Once again you are absolutely on target, a lot of 'Research' has gone into your deduction.

The 'Macro-Photographs' in our #4Post are of our own making and from our own research

and they clearly show the structure of a JPeg scanned to a PC-Monitor with the embedded

Data-streams. When a large Image is viewed on a small LCD Monitor (15/17") the system

uses a method of 'best-averaging' to squeeze it into the small space.

However when you try to expand a small Image to a large Screen the reverse is true...

in fact its much worse. Because there is not enough data in the Image the 'best-averaging'

system fill's in the voids with 'gradient Colours' deduced from those visible on that particular

Line-Scan. This ends up as a 'clunky' Colour mass falling down towards 256 Colours if the

Image is over-expanded and this shows as very heavy pixellisation.

So we should select larger Images ~ but there is a limit to this also. Its imposed by the limits

of a 32.Bit PC System and its available RAM and its processing speed

Please don't take me to task on this,but in general viz:-

* A good Single-Processor PC can comfortably manage Images of 1200x900 pix.

* Duo-Core Processors with 1.Gb.Ram are comfortable with 2400x1800 pix.

* Quad-Core (64.bit) with lots of Ram are just ticking over at 4800x3600 pix.

But now things are becomming ridiculous unless you are in the 'Poster Advertising Business'

or attempting to use Video-Projectors.

But thats off topic because this thread was started by Robert(Lumenlux) on the subject of

comparitive Picture quality ~V~ Image size.

Brian.Conflow.

[tc_leeds]

Peter,

Once again you are absolutely on target, a lot of 'Research' has gone into your deduction.

The 'Macro-Photographs' in our #4Post are of our own making and from our own research

and they clearly show the structure of a JPeg scanned to a PC-Monitor with the embedded

Data-streams. When a large Image is viewed on a small LCD Monitor (15/17") the system

uses a method of 'best-averaging' to squeeze it into the small space.

However when you try to expand a small Image to a large Screen the reverse is true...

in fact its much worse. Because there is not enough data in the Image the 'best-averaging'

system fill's in the voids with 'gradient Colours' deduced from those visible on that particular

Line-Scan. This ends up as a 'clunky' Colour mass falling down towards 256 Colours if the

Image is over-expanded and this shows as very heavy pixellisation.

So we should select larger Images ~ but there is a limit to this also. Its imposed by the limits

of a 32.Bit PC System and its available RAM and its processing speed

Please don't take me to task on this,but in general viz:-

* A good Single-Processor PC can comfortably manage Images of 1200x900 pix.

* Duo-Core Processors with 1.Gb.Ram are comfortable with 2400x1800 pix.

* Quad-Core (64.bit) with lots of Ram are just ticking over at 4800x3600 pix.

But now things are becomming ridiculous unless you are in the 'Poster Advertising Business'

or attempting to use Video-Projectors.

But thats off topic because this thread was started by Robert(Lumenlux) on the subject of

comparitive Picture quality ~V~ Image size.

Brian.Conflow.

Hi Peter/Brian,

Again thank you for your responses. However, I am still not sure of the purpose of "Virtual Size Of Slide". Am I correct in assuming that if a sequence produced in PTE5.6 has imported images of 2560 x 1925 used with the Project Options>Screen "Virtual Size Of Slide" set to 1400 x 1050 these will project Full Screen with no Up-Sizing or Down-Sizing when projected using a 1400 x 1050 projector. Is this the purpose of "Virtual Size Of Slide"?

Tony

[xahu34]

... I am still not sure of the purpose of "Virtual Size Of Slide". Am I correct in assuming that if a sequence produced in PTE5.6 has imported images of 2560 x 1925 used with the Project Options>Screen "Virtual Size Of Slide" set to 1400 x 1050 these will project Full Screen with no Up-Sizing or Down-Sizing when projected using a 1400 x 1050 projector. Is this the purpose of "Virtual Size Of Slide"?

No, the "Virtual Size Of Slide" has only consequeces during modeling with the Size/Position tool. See here, and here.

Regards,

Xaver

[davegee]

So, practically speaking, where does all that leave us?

I tried a couple of experiments/tests to try to differentiate between at least two of the options available. Details as follows.

Test 1

Image size:1400x1050

Monitor Resolution 1920x1200

Screen Options: Fullscreen; 4:3; 1400x1050: Fixed Size of Slide unticked.

When the 1400x1050 image is added it fits the PTE project screen in the Mini-Player as expected.

If I play this in Preview mode on my 1920x1200 monitor the 1400x1050 image is fitted to the Height of the screen (1200).

If I create an EXE file and transfer it to a laptop with a 1024x768 native resolution monitor the 1400x1050 show fits to the monitor.

Test 2

Image size:1400x1050

Monitor Resolution 1920x1200

Screen Options: Fullscreen; 4:3; 1400x1050: Fixed Size of Slide Ticked

If I play this is Preview mode on my 1920x1200 monitor the 1400x1050 image is seen in the centre of the monitor with black bands all around – pixel for pixel.

If I create an EXE file and transfer it to a laptop with a 1024x768 native resolution monitor the 1400x1050 show fits to the monitor.

Conclusion: For monitors whose resolution is smaller than the image size (but the same aspect ratio) either EXE will “Fit to Screen”. On a 5:4 monitor (1280x1024) either EXE will fit to the WIDTH of the screen with a black band at the top and bottom.

For monitors whose resolution is greater than image size only the EXE in which the “Fixed Size of Slide” is used plays correctly and without upwards interpolation of the image.

So, as I said above:

Work to the size (resolution) of YOUR monitor's native maximum resolution.

Quality 10 images - 8 if you feel that nothing has been lost.

Fullscreen show - with Size of Slide set to your monitor resolution with Fixed Size of Slide ticked.

Your show will Fit to Screen on all monitors "smaller" than yours and will maintain the set size on all monitors "larger" than yours.

DaveG

[LumenLux]

There are just too many damned variables now!

regards,

Peter

Life is simple, until we try to understand it.

[fh1805]

Life is simple, until we try to understand it.

Hi Robert,

Now that's a great tag line! Short, profound and totally true in all respects.

regards,

Peter

[tc_leeds]

Hi Robert,

Now that's a great tag line! Short, profound and totally true in all respects.

regards,

Peter

Hi All,

Thanks for all your info. It's a shame the "Virtual Size Of Slide" doesn't do what I thought it might. Maybe this function could be incorporated, if practical/possible, in a future update. The way forward now seem much clearer and with a little more experimentation we should be able to come up with suitable recommendations for future sequences.

Tony

Life was all so different before everything changed!

[xahu34]

... It's a shame the "Virtual Size Of Slide" doesn't do what I thought it might. Maybe this function could be incorporated, if practical/possible, in a future update. The way forward now seem much clearer and with a little more experimentation we should be able to come up with suitable recommendations for future sequences ...

Tony,

The "Size/Position tool" in combination with "Virtual size of slide" has been introduced as a kind of replacement of the former "Original mode". Do I understand your requirement correctly, that you would like to have an original embedding (no Up-Sizing or Down-Sizing, as you say) of your big images (2560 x 1925) with respect to a screen of size 1400x1050?

You can achieve this by setting the Virtual size to 1400x1050 (Screen options) and (for each image) by clicking the word "Size" in the Size/Position tool (O&A window, Common tab).

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

[AnKo]

Hi All,

To me the option to choose for virtual or fixed size is confusing me. I make HD MP4 most of the time which, by the way, look perfect played on my WD TV connected to my 32" LCD TV.

In the DISPLAY-tab I choose 16:9 as output format (while my display is 16:10). My images are downsized to 1920 x 1200 (16:10).

In the virtual size box there is an other format filled in automaticly with an other, smaller, resolution! Changing this to 1920 x 1200 the output format is changed back to 16:10. But I want 16:9 output (DVD) format. Until now I leave them as auto filled in by PtE. But is this the right thing to do?

My question is how to deal with these parameters in order to get a HD MP4 of the best quality (downsized to full HD 1920 x 1080)? I just don't understand the relation between these options and the final output formats in DVD-builder.

Why not use aspect ratio's ONLY. NOT linked to any resolution? Wouldn't that stop the whole discussion about resolutions?

Kind regards,

André

[xahu34]

... Why not use aspect ratio's ONLY. NOT linked to any resolution? Wouldn't that stop the whole discussion about resolutions ...

Hi André,

It is easy to say: Get rid of this stuff, if you do not intend to use it. But there are at least some users who actually do understand (and maybe use) these features, and they typically do not start a discussion on them.

You can do the following, if you like, and you will have aspect ratio only:

- Leave the box “Fixed size of slide” unticked.

- Choose your aspect ratio.

- Ignore the fields for “Virtual size of slide".

But keep in mind:

- There are users who want to create shows whose images should not be up-sized on big monitors: They need the feature of “Fixed size of slide”.

- There are users who want to place images onto the screen using explicit pixel positions (think of productions by Jean-Pierre (JPD)). They need the “Original mode” (no longer available), or at least the “Size/Position tool” in combination with either “Fixed or Virtual size of slide”.

Best regards,

Xaver

[AnKo]

Hi Xaver,

I am sorry if my post suggested that I have no respect to others who need to use these options. That is not my intention. Clearly I am not familiar with these options. As I said, these options are confusing me.

I followed the discussion in which JPD promoted the benefits of his "gale" method, but found it to complex to understand completely. But I understand the need to have controle over resolutions (and now even better).

Still my question stands:

My question is how to deal with these parameters in order to get a HD MP4 of the best quality (downsized to full HD 1920 x 1080)? I just don't understand the relation between these options and the final output formats in DVD-builder.

You can do the following, if you like, and you will have aspect ratio only:

- Leave the box “Fixed size of slide” unticked.

- Choose your aspect ratio.

- Ignore the fields for “Virtual size of slide".

Thanks for that! It make things clear to me.

Kind regards,

André

[davegee]

Andre,

If you trying to make HD MP4 - why are you using 1920x1200?

You need to size your images to 1920x1080 and set everything up fo 16:9 - 1920x1080.

DaveG

[AnKo]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply.

I did not explained my resizing correctly. I resize (in Lightroom) all NEF images to the 1920 longside of my monitor. Comming from 3000 x 2000 that means that the shortside ends up somewhere at 1280. With standing images I resize the shortside to 1920. Not 1920 x 1200.

The reason for this way of handeling my images is that there is a lot to crop (and loose image) when resizing to 1920 x 1080. Now I make use of the full width of my monitor and can move the image a bit in O&A, while standing images match the screen longside resolution so I can pan up or down. This way I am able to use all of the image to show, without cropping. When making a HD MP4 I select 1920 x 1080 and let PtE do the job.

Also I have read on this forum that using the monitors resolution is a good starting point. In fact, my PC system is able to handle my full size images easily. Using fullsize images will give me compleet freedom in O&A without loosing image quality, I guess.

But you are right when saying to resize to 1920 x 1080 cause of the HD resolution. Now I "virtualy crop" in O&A and make a pan if needed.

I feel I am on the compleet wrong road with resolutions and have to spend more time in understanding this issue.

Kind regards,

André

[tc_leeds]

Tony,

The "Size/Position tool" in combination with "Virtual size of slide" has been introduced as a kind of replacement of the former "Original mode". Do I understand your requirement correctly, that you would like to have an original embedding (no Up-Sizing or Down-Sizing, as you say) of your big images (2560 x 1925) with respect to a screen of size 1400x1050?

You can achieve this by setting the Virtual size to 1400x1050 (Screen options) and (for each image) by clicking the word "Size" in the Size/Position tool (O&A window, Common tab).

Best regards,

Xaver

Munich

Hi Xaver,

Thanks for the info. I will do some experimenting with the settings in PTE as suggested and then project the various options to see what is on the screen. It seems that if the images are larger than 1400 x 1050 then the projected image will be down-sized to 1400 x 1050 giving a full screen image without any of the original images being cropped in the process. Also by utilising the method you suggest a similar effect will result. As we are currently producing at 1024 x 768 it would appear from earlier posts that the image will automatically up-size with a resulting degredation of the images. To what extent will need to be looked at closely.

We will also need to consider individuals who use a 3 x 2 aspect ratio to ensure the full width of the images are shown albeit with a blank strip at the top and bottom.

All the best

Tony

[Conflow]

Tony,

Just a 'quik' reply. The 3:2 Aspect-ratio is the American NTSC TV-Standard

whereas the European Pal TV-Standard is 4:3 ratio - as are 4:3 PC Monitors.

Hope that helps a bit...

Brian.Conlow.

[tc_leeds]

Tony,

Just a 'quik' reply. The 3:2 Aspect-ratio is the American NTSC TV-Standard

whereas the European Pal TV-Standard is 4:3 ratio - as are 4:3 PC Monitors.

Hope that helps a bit...

Brian.Conlow.

Hi Brian,

Thanks for the reply. 3:2 is also the 35mm camera format and we have some members who prefer to use this format and are reluctant to crop. As a result we project some sequences with a black band at the top and bottom. Hence the need to ensure they are produced at the correct size to fill the width of the screen without re-sizing upwards and therefore giving some degredation of the images.

Interesting topic though.

All the best

Tony