davegee

Gary, For most (I suspect) the EXE is the Primary Goal and images can be optimised to suit. It is then a simple matter to create an MP4 from the completed project. There is definitely not a case for two different versions. If the EXE is the best you can make it then the MP4 will be as good as it can be. We will have to agree to disagree over the quality issue when making the MP4 and I think that somewhere along the way you are missing something in this respect. DG

Peter, With the existing tools I am of the opinion that what Gary seeks is not possible? An Object can only have ONE set of grab handles - it has to be a "complex object" to enable there to be more than one variable on a single object. My post #14 is not offering him a workaround it is seeking clarification - if that is indeed what he wants I am at a loss to see how it can be achieved. Maybe Igor can work miracles when he returns - he has before. I also think that Gary could have placed this in a different part of the forum until he is/was absolutely sure that he wanted to suggest it in its present location? His OP is more of a "testing the water" than a serious "Suggestion for next version". Also a simple "No Workarounds Please" would perhaps stop the practice. DG

Gary, To clarify - this is what you are looking for isn't it? The outer and inner dimensions are independently variable. Project1_1.zip DG

Gary, I could be wrong but isn't this a Mask Application? Project1_1_Oct2-2014_19-44-00.zip The outer Grab Handles are Rectangle 1 and the inner grab handles are the Mask (Rectangle). DG

Gary, Your out of camera images, if they are jpeg are compressed. If you were to take a raw file and just convert it and then save as jpeg at 100% you could then compare the resulting "uncompressed" jpeg with your ooc jpeg. It probably will have little bearing on your "problem" but I don't think it is correct to say that your ooc jpeg is not compressed? DG

Gary, Just thinking out loud (I know, it is dangerous!!). I would not really consider using the Low Quality preset - ever. It might be interesting to save the same show at a lower resolution and a Higher (Highest) quality preset? The file size would (should) go down but the quality "might" be better than the Low Quality (High Res) preset - on your TV?? I have never used anything other than 1920x1080 High Quality, but neither have I included 328 slides in an MP4!! DG P.S. With that many slides, another way of drastically reducing MP4 file size would be to knock 0.5 - 1.0 second off each slide's duration?

Mick, Try loading this and then make an MP4 from it. Use the 1920x1080 Preset - High Quality - Pan and Scan enabled. Project1_Sep30-2014_18-32-45.zip DG

Think of the Zooming requirements in terms of your Project Size. In a 1920x1080 Project you need 3840x2160 to get a 2:1 (200%) Zoom but the maximum pixels on screen at any one time are never greater than 1920x1080. If you then reduce that 1920x1080 Project to a smaller size the Zoom is taken care of (proportionally) but you never get back to 1920x1080 on the TV without losses (artifacts), however small. DG

Hi Gary, All done - thanks. The Up/Down arrows method was already there for the Animation Tab but I have added the Page Up/Down information. DG

Thanks.

Thanks Gary, I will take a look at it and let you know when it is done. DG

A number of updates, revisions and How To's have been added to the Online Help during September. Amongst the How To's is a method for creating a Circular Image with (or without) Frame which can be Zoomed, Panned etc within the Frame. Once again, the Online Help is an ongoing project and is open to anyone to contribute. DG

In version 8 you can make the full width of a 1920x1200 monitor equal to 0.00.04Sec using Ctrl and Scroll Wheel. DG

You are upscaling from 800 high to 1080 high so theoretically there is a loss which you might not see unless you have a side by side comparison. The 1620x1080 images are irrelevant - you will have reduced those to 1200x800 when you made the mp4. You don't get that back.

Mick, Did you test run either my suggestion or that of JT? DG

Hi HF, First apologies, but your post is a little difficult to understand. Could you add an illustration in the form of a screen grab to help us to understand what you are asking? http://docs.picturestoexe.com/en/techniques/screengrab By transitions do you mean "effects" like zooming or Panning? DG

Mick, In general, the "Virtual Size of Slide" should be based on your Monitor Resolution or the intended output resolution - TV or Projector. If you are using 3x2 images in a project intended to be shown on a TV try using a 16x9 (1920x1080) virtual size of slide and superimposing your 3x2 images onto that AR. If you are zooming then you might need a mask to curtail the 3x2 images from bleeding into the 16x9 format. Nothing more than a Black 16x9 image with a 1620x1080 hole cut into the middle. I would then use a white or grey line on the 1620x1080 portion to give a separation between the image and the mask. Make your MP4 16x9 - 1920x1080 and you will have no AR problems. DG

The article (first draft): Link or Add an Audio File to a SlideHas been added to the Online Help File. http://docs.picturestoexe.com/en/techniques/linkoradd DG

Then try the Nested Frames approach - it is much easier. DG

Two things come to mind. Firstly, this might help some: http://docs.picturestoexe.com/en/techniques/kenburns?s[]=linear Secondly, investigate using separate nested frames for Pan, Zoom and Rotate of an Object (image). i.e. Parent/Child Frames - The Pan Frame is used ONLY for Panning - the Zoom frame is used ONLY for Zooming etc. Pan Frame -------Zoom Frame ----------------Rotate Frame --------------------------Object DG

Stu, Forgive me if I am wrong but the way I read this is that you are thinking purely of the Viewer. What about the author who would not want his/her work upscaled accidentally or otherwise. Would he/she always have to produce at a higher resolution than the screen it is likely to be played on? I note that you are not suggesting that the Fixed Size of Slide be removed. In view of Igor's last words it might not be necessary to continue this discussion? DG

If the picture is anything to go by it appears to be a 5/6/7 and possibly not a 1 series. DG

Now you are being silly and deliberately provocative. Let's say for argument that we decide that tomorrow's new "standard" is something like 3840 wide. That means that an owner of a D300s (or equivalent) or someone who wants to include a D300s (or equivalent) image can neither zoom nor crop (simile). We don't all have 1DS mk IIII cameras. Bend a little? DG

I might have read his post wrongly but I do not think that Igor said that the inclusion of this feature was holding anything up or preventing further development? If that were the case then I would, as always, back him 100%. But if it can be maintained then I think that it should remain as an option. Whilst using higher resolution images in a higher resolution project is the obvious answer it will, for some - in theory, curtail the amount of zoom which can be applied to some images from older cameras. If it can be maintained then I think that it should remain as an option. DG