davegee

I think that we need to more fully understand what the information in front of us is actually telling us before making suggestions. If you manually resize the frame created as I suggested, the figures change in the "Size/Position" but not in "Properties". Why? DaveG

Xaver, I understand. DaveG

Igor, Did you pick up my message that it is impossible to enter a minus figure in the position box in "size/Position.." - it has to be done with up/down arrows. Peter, Can you confirm? DaveG

Interesting point JP, In PS at "Actual Pixels" the relationship between the layers appears to be on an "absolute pixels" basis but when you apply a zoom factor the "percentage" relationship comes into play between layers. Perhaps they have two "systems"? One for "Actual Pixels" and another for all other zoom percentages? DaveG

Peter, Until you sort out the apparent anomaly regarding the size/position of a frame can I suggest that using a plain black image with opacity set to zero as a "virtual frame" (to use JPD's terminology) will produce the desired results. When inserting images as children of other images and using PNG files where necessary the "anomalies" do not occur. DaveG

Xaver, A while ago you said: A major difference in my eyes seems to be that 5.5 with original mode places objects pixel oriented, while 5.6 internally seems to be completely percentage oriented. The size/position window only seems to be a tool for avoiding calculations (from pixels to percentages). I had a look at a project file created with 5.6: It did not contain the pixel coordinates which I typed into that window, but only the corresponding percentage information. The images all have position mode "percent", I think that position mode "absolute" does no longer exist. It occured to me that absolute pixel relationships between objects would be only be possible on monitors of the same resolution/aspect ratio. In order to preserve relationships between objects across a variety of different resolution/aspect ratio monitors the distance between them MUST be expressed as a percentage. Two objects xxxx pixels apart on my 1920x1200 monitor would appear to be further apart when viewed on a 1400x1050 monitor if an absolute pixels relationship were maintained. Hence the need to change to a percentage based relationship. DaveG

Cor, After pressing the SIZE button you can bring things back to normal by changing the percentage figure in animations back to 100%. Regarding 3): All relationships are to the PARENT. DaveG

OK Peter, I copy that. Now, add a child to the first child and all subsequent children take on the correct size attributes. It appears to me that it is only the first child that behaves in this strange way? DaveG P.S. I think this behaviour only applies to children of FRAMES and not to children of images?

On a lighter note, here's a demo which is called SNOOKER. The TABLE is the VIRTUAL FRAME, the RED BALL is a child of the table and the WHITE BALL is the child of the RED BALL. The table is a 1920x1200 JPEG and the RED BALL and WHITE BALL are both 1920x1200 PNG files with the balls at their starting positions. At every keyframe the position of every element is determinable with absolute accuracy with respect to its parent. I have tried it on both my 1920x1200 monitor and my laptop's 1280x1024 monitor and the result is identical albeit smaller. Enjoy, DaveG http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=411ad3b...d8b33b5aa27078d

Dick, Please set Fullscreen, 5:4 and add a 1280x1024 image. In O&A right click on the image title on the right hand side and delete it to leave a plain black background. Add a frame and if yours behaves the same as mine you should see, in Size/Position, 1280x1024 for Size and two zeros for position. DaveG

Sorry Peter, We were both writing at the same time. It won't be counter intuitive to JP - he says that he uses layers to construct his shows. What could be easier than saving each layer at its full resolution either as a JPEG (if it has no transparency) or a PNG (if it has transparency)? DaveG

Hi Peter, Once again, and with great respect, have you tried what I have suggested to JP? The attached screen shot shows the difference. The size and position figures show tha actual pixels relationship between the green and blue images. The Blue image is a 1600x1200 transparent PNG with a 640x480 Blue image at the centre. When I select any of the images the correct pixel relationship between it and its parent is shown. DaveG EDITED

Peter has asked me to add to this thread. He and I are getting different results when we "ADD" a new frame (Beta 4). The screen shot attached shows what I am getting. It represents a frame added to a Full-screen 16:9 Project on a 1920x1200 monitor. On a different sized monitor the SIZE figures should show the resolution of the monitor in use (when running at Native Resolution). DaveG

JP, Why not? We have to change with the times and adapt to new working procedures. DaveG

JP, With great respect, your problem is the BLUE image. If you substitute a 1280x960 PNG file with a 640x480 blue image in the centre it will appear as it should and all measurements in the "Size/Position.." will be correct. When making alterations to the BLUE image you then calculate according to the outer frame which is, of course, 1280x960. DaveG

JP, You only sent the project file - can you send Backup in Zip? I the meantime please look at part two of my reply to Xaver? DaveG

Xaver (part 2), If the same 1000x500 JPEG is inserted into a frame then weird things start to happen. In order to get the same results when using a frame I have to insert a 1500x1200 transparent PNG file with the 1000x500 JPEG in the centre to achieve the same result. The properties of the PARENT FRAME are now what I have to consider.The position figures in the "Size/Position..." box for the FRAME now show zero. To move my 1000x500 JPEG to the left extreme of the frame I should be able to type Minus 250 into the properties of the FRAME but I have to use the up and down arrows to get to where I want. (I think there is a problem here IGOR) The same applies when I want to move my 1000x500 image to the top of the frame (-350). DaveG

Xaver, I can't agree. Please consider this: I have a Full screen 5:4 Project on my 1920x1200 monitor in front of me. In O&A I insert a JPEG which is 1000x500 pixels. It opens up as Fit to Slide and fills the width of my screen. I click on Size in the "Size/Position.." screen and it resizes my JPEG to the correct relationship with the screen and tells me that the image size is 1000x500. It also tells me that the position of my image relative to the left of the screen is 250 Pixels and to the top of the screen 350 Pixels. I'll let you do the Math but I think you'll find that it's giving me the correct information. I change the 250 figure to zero and the image flies over to the left extreme. I change the 350 to zero and my image flies to the top extreme. I can set any pixel value I like and the image goes precisely where I require it. Can you reproduce that and is it not "absolute"? DaveG

Hi Peter, As I have previously stated I no longer make DVDs because of the quality issues but I respect the needs of others. I wasn't asking about practicalities - I was making statements, which I think as you progress you will find are correct. My concerns are for the future development of PTE which Igor has said will be better served without Original Mode and I'm sure that there must be a compromise solution which will work within the framework of what Igor has provided in 5.6. So, to sum up again, with the exception of reducing the size of the project for making a DVD, the reliance on Original Mode is not there. What we should be looking for is a solution to the TV Safe Zone problem. DaveG

Peter, When you add a frame it automatically "fits to slide" (in my case). Therefore if you add a frame to a 1280x1024 project it already is 1280x1024. When you add a 1280x960 "child" to the frame it automatically "fits to slide" (fits to width) and is in reality in original mode because of its relationship with the project size. Anything you do to it afterwards is relative to its parent. Keep the animation tab open and you can see what is happening to the "child". If you downloaded the "Masks and Frames" Backup in Zip before I disabled it you can see it in action there. DaveG

Hi Peter, I have read the PDF a couple of times and would like to briefly comment on what I understand so far. If we just take the first section - "The Cale Method". If we substitute a "FRAME" for the "CALE" then I see no difference in the methodology - correct? If we take your 1280x1024 project example and all of the images used in the project (main images, parents and children) are either 1280 wide or 1024 high then "Fit to Slide" and "Original Mode" are one and the same thing - correct? If we take your 1280x1024 project example and insert an image into the frame which is 640 pixels wide and set a zoom figure of 50% in animation then the 640 pixel image has an actual pixels relationship with the parent frame – correct? So, if we know the relationship between the parent frame and the inserted image we are able to correctly set the relationship via the Zoom setting in Animation (if necessary). All of this also fits in with the concept of constructing projects in Layers in Photoshop so no problems there. So far so good – I see nothing here which is totally reliant on “Original Mode”. Maybe the “Virtual Cale” or “Virtual Frame” will throw up some anomalies which have so far not surfaced? DaveG

Peter, It is probably to do with video memory. The right hand side is the one which has the large resolution image(!!). My video card has 512Mb memory. Lin, I knew someone would have a larger one!! But seriously, 1920x1200 is about the norm for dedicated amateur photographers these days - in my experience/circles. 1920x1080 is becoming the norm for projectors so to be able to see shows and single images in "actual pixels" and full-screen a 1920x1200 is about right. If I could afford/justify a 1920x1080 monitor I would go for that. I'd love to hear from anyone who has tried this on more than one computer/monitor setup at different native resolutions to prove that this is a "one size fits all" solution? I've tried it and it works, but I don't count! DaveG

Hi Igor, I'm sorry but my original runs far smoother than your updated file (even with the "wrong sized" file). Please check "mipmapping" before releasing Beta 5? DaveG

Aaaaarghh!!!! Apologies with regard to the oversized image!! I dragged two images from another 1920x1080 project but forgot that particular one was used for a deep zoom!! Two other points if I may: 1. I used 1920x1080 (!!) images in 1920x1200 project. The whole thing is far easier to do if the images are the same as screen resolution i.e. 1920x1080 images in 1920x1080 project. I saw no point in doing a project at a lower resolution - if it is going to be "one size fits all" it has to be able to cope with what I think(!) is the highest monitor resolution out there at this time. 2. The backup file might not be applicable to your computer unless you have a 1920x1200 monitor (running at native resolution) so I have disabled it. Thanks Igor.

Andreas, 128Mb is borderline with the size of these images (abnormal). Thanks, DaveG