davegee

Hi Ken, Manual? It's possible that Neal is asking why there are not as many choices in Video Style as there are in the other two styles? DG

In V7 beta 10: >Project Options> Main> Tick Show Nav Bar >Customize Nav Bar >Choose style and add the controls you require - set Auto Hide Time etc. DG

If you cannot make the ISO (UNTICK BURN DVD and TICK CREATE ISO) then something in your project COULD be causing the problem. Try removing MUSIC and make ISO. If that fails split project in half and try to make an ISO from each half. If one half makes ISO and the other does not you have isolated a section of the project to investigate further. DG

Like it or not Barry, I'm afraid that we all have the facility you speak of. It is just triggered more easily in some than in others. ;) DG P.S. This post contains NO mallicious content and has been screened by the necessary body (PHIL).

JFF, Just in case clarification is needed: Your original key (purchased years ago) is for LIFE. To unlock the additional features which you might be trying to access (VIDEOBUILDER) you need an additional license. Without the additional license you should still be able to create an EXE file as well as an AVI with which to make a DVD. Is it possible that you have purchased a new NORMAL ($49) license and not the required VIDEOBUILDER ($75) license? Hope this helps? DG

What we all agree on is that MP3's are more efficient and take up less space than WAV files. CALM DOWN EVERYONE!!!!!! DG

JFF, Go to www.wnsoft.com and raise a support ticket? Please (!!!!!) come back and let us know the result? DG

The Laptop is Vista - updated a couple of months ago. It doesn't occur on my Desktop either. XP Media Centre Edition about five years old - NEVER been updated. DG

Can you make an ISO (instead of trying to burn DVD)??? Tell us STEP BY STEP what is happening - when does it stop? DG

It is more usual (and economical) to use MP3 files in PTE. Have you tried that option? DG

John, I'm not seeing the same as you and cannot replicate it - 1280x800 Laptop Monitor. DG

Hi Peter, If you explore the link I gave you and enter, for instance, my figure (52.9573) for the angle and then Sheila's 53 together with a base dimension of 400 you'll see that the result is a difference of 1 pixel. My suggested figure gives 663.999xxxxxx (664) Sheila's angle gives 664.65xxxxx (665??) My suggestion is that the ONE pixel difference is noticeable and COULD be magnified by other factors, especially when the different monitor resolutions are taken into account. Try those figures in Excel and see if they are the same (?) - they should be. If a Maths Exam paper gave a figure of 52.9573 to work with then that's the figure I would use - it's there for a purpose. It's not that big a deal but my background tells me that I should be as accurate as possible in these things. I have to trust Igor's and PTE's maths capabilities until someone proves otherwise. DG P.S. Regarding your 127.04xxxx figure, what would happen if you started from a completely folded (flattened or collapsed) object and asked it to open all sides out to 52.9573? Would that be more accurate?That's the way I approached this excercise.

Jean-Cyprien, You and I are saying the exact same thing in slightly different ways. However, I would advocate the use of "custom built" Frames (independent of screen resolution) to simplify the process. For instance, if a frame of 400x400 is used in the construction of a 400x400 cube then the PAN Z values are always 100%. You could also use an 800x800 Frame to construct the 400x400 Cube in which case the PAN Z values would be 50%. One further point: PAN Z is not necessary in the construction of a cube. It is only necessary for moving the cube backwards or forwards relative to the viewer. Pan Z was not used and was not needed in the construction of the Photo Frame elsewhere in this thread. Going back to the FRAME itself, I am reminded that JPD sometimes used a CALE which was of a fixed height but ONLY ONE PIXEL WIDE. He was way ahead of his time!! DG

Peter, I can't argue about PTE rounding off the figure. However, I must admit to doing a bit of reverse engineering in designing the challenge. I tried to get a figure for the angle which produced the nearest "whole pixel" dimensions for the sides. The figure which then came up was 92.9573. Whilst the actual slope of the Great Pyramid is 92.xx it slightly less than my 92.9573. If you look at Sheila's Template you'll see that her rounding up or down has produced a much more inaccurate result than yours and mine did. Somehow, her figure came to 666 as opposed to our 664. Notwithstanding the number of decimal places issue, I still maintain that being as accurate as possible is to be desired when trying to impart a principle on others who might be trying to learn from our efforts. If I were using Excel I would be looking for a large number of decimal places in the calculations phases but rounding off the final result. Does that not make sense? DG

DEFINITION OF PAN Z I will attempt to define Pan Z. But first I must explain my terminology. An object in O&A has a "NATURAL HEIGHT" and an "APPARENT HEIGHT". If an object is created in PS being 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels high and added to PTE O&A its "NATURAL HEIGHT" is 600 pixels. If the same object is turned through 90 degrees its "APPARENT HEIGHT" is 800 pixels but its "NATURAL HEIGHT" is still 600 pixels. The definition: PAN Z applied to an object is a function of the "NATURAL HEIGHT" of its parent frame. e.g. if +/- 100% PAN Z is applied to an object which has a parent frame which is 800 wide by 600 high the object will move by +/- 300 pixels. Open to comments. DG

Hi Peter, I have to disagree - if the object that you are making is interacting with another object then the inaccuracies introduced by approximation are/can be AMPLIFIED. A discrepancy which does not show on a 1024x768 monitor might be horrible on a 2560 wide monitor (or vice versa)? I think that my point would be: It's OK to compromise/approximate when you are doing it yourself for your own use, but if you are making your efforts public or TEACHING then you have to be exact. Thanks for participating, it's been interesting, DG

Sheila, It MIGHT(?) be possible to correct your "discrepancies" by taking your triangles back into Photoshop and resizing to 800x664. If you then adjust all of the angles to 52.9573 degrees you SHOULD be there? DG

Hi Peter, The reason I mentioned the PAN Z control is as follows: IN THIS INSTANCE (and taking your method specifically) your PAN Z setting is 33% of SOMETHING which ultimately represents 132.5 Pixels - a quarter of the height of the object. 33% suggests a third, but if you say it's 135 Pixels I accept that. If it is a THIRD of SOMETHING shouldn't it be 33.3333333333% for greater accuracy? The other way of tackling it, as I have done, is to use a frame which is twice the widthof the desired movement (PAN). By adding the BASE to that turning it by 90 degrees the PAN Control in O&A can be used to move the BASE by (EXACTLY) 100%. In this relationship, moving an object by 100% means moving it HALF of the width of the Parent i.e. (EXACTLY) 132.5 Pixels. I started this thread in an attempt to UNDERSTAND PAN Z - I must admit to be still struggling. I know the EFFECT of PAN Z - I just struggle with the Maths of it. However, I can understand the concept of 100% pan in O&A being equal to 50% of the width of the parent much easier. I also think that carefully choosing the PIXEL size of a PARENT frame is very important to getting accurate results. I will leave PAN Z to the business of getting an EFFECT rather than getting accurate placement until I understand a little more. Can you offer a mathematical explanation of PAN Z? DG

Hi Sheila, Where did you get the "daemonic" 666 figure from? Peter and I agree on 664. If you turn your zoom percentage up to 500% in O&A you can see the inaccuracy in the apex of the pyramid between the first two keypoints. Also I can't see that your pyramid revolves around the Geometric Centre of the object? You have used 53 degrees as opposed to 52.9573. That figure is very important and can be inputted manually. If you use 664 and 52.9573 it all comes together perfectly at a point 530 above the base. Take a look at my Template? DG

Peter, Closely examine the differences between your two controlling frames and the 800x800 base and mine? You will notice that I haven't had to use a PAN Z setting. DG

Well done Peter!! You got it!! DG

Here's mine. The zipped folder includes the Template and the EXE. 1920x1080 V7 Beta 9 DG Template and EXE.zip

Before I look at those here's a thought about drawing a triangle. If the angle that you are trying to draw is anything OTHER than 45 dgrees you are going to get into difficulties because the pixel nature of a photoshop canvas means that your angle is going to be a STEPPED line. If you start with a 2:1 canvas then the angle will be a perfect 45 degrees. Photoshop can cope with that. Then, by making your PNG in that format it can be resized to any height you require using Image Size and adjusting height only. DG

Hi Peter, I know exactly what you mean and I refered to the "problem" in an earlier post. I turned all "SNAP" controls OFF and made sure that the rulers are set to PIXELS rather than percentage. I also worked at 3200%. I'll have a word with one of my Photoshop gurus later in the week on Club Night. DG

This site: http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/301/lectures/node102.html ....gives the proof of the Geometric Centre for a Pyramid. DG