davegee

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

Igor, Upscaling just to fill the screen at the possible expense of quality is NOT desirable. Not so long ago people were making 1024x768 shows which were only filling part of a 1920x1080 screen. The advice to them was never to make upscaling possible - the advice was to use bigger images. If this change is put in place then we all need to consider making our standard (EXE) resolution 3840x2160 or bigger. DG

Igor, I always use 1920x1080 (or 1200). Fixed Size at that resolution will play on any monitor UP TO 1920x1080. But it will not upscale any further. I don't want my images upsized to 2560x1440 on one of the newer, larger monitors which are already available. DG

I am also concerned about prevention of Upscaling beyond the Virtual Size of a Slide.

In slide list or timeline?

Please - it duplicates one already there. Does it make a difference if MUR choose DEMOS when uploading?? DG

Barry, I can see your logic but all new projects are potentially both EXE and Video. All options need to be available without having to go back and reset switches? JMO. DG

Test SLIDESHOW uploaded successfully. Did MUR try to upload to DEMOS section?? DG

Mur, If you are trying to upload to the DEMO section that could be the problem. Try uploading a show to the SLIDESHOWS section and you should be OK. DG

Mur, I usually add a post in the Online Help thread when anything is added to the file. There is also a link on the top right of the Online Help page for "Recent changes". Today I added your Shift + Click to move a track containing multiple audio clips tip. At the very beginning of the Online Help project I invited submissions but I cannot remember one such submission. I have "commissioned" a few and have credited everyone who has responded. The offer is still open.