davegee

Hi Henri, I tried to answer as best I could some time ago. With regard to your laptop and its connection to a projector or external monitor, it is POSSIBLE (?) that your graphics card will support the 1920x1080 format. For instance I can see that my NVIDIA 7600 GS card will support monitors and/or projectors up to and including 2048x1536. If the graphics card in your laptop does the same then you will not have to replace your laptop. Let's hope my terminology is correct! DaveG

Yeah, Let's wait and see who wins the next match? Best wishes, DaveG

Actual Pixels - a Photoshop Terminology - it's "always" been there and gives the best representation of what an image will look like when projected by a projector whose stated resolution is the same as the images stated resolution (in pixels). As for "trying to "ad hoc" adjust your 1024x768 Images in a way as to give you the best 'quality-compromise' when these are Projected on to a Screen. Then you are trying to develop a 'procedure' whereby you can repeat the process at will in the future." I am not trying to develop this approach - I have always done it. DaveG

Brian, Could I ask - "Is this a Rugby thing?" Because if it is let me say that if Wales hadn't won the tournament I would have supported Ireland all the way!! DaveG

What do I mean by ACTUAL PIXELS? In my terminology one of my images which Photoshop tells me in "Image Size" is 1280x1024 pixels fills my 1280x1024 monitor when shown via a PTE show constructed with the image mode set to "original" in a Windowed Mode PTE show with the window set to 1280x1024 (without border). In the same show a 1024x768 image set up in exactly the same way would take up proportionately less space in the middle of the screen. In the same show a 1400x1050 pixel image set up the same way would only show part of the image with a little cropped from all sides. If this 1400x1050 image were to be set to Image Mode=Fit to screen it would be Interpolated down to fit the width (?) of the screen with black lines top and bottom. I can't explain it any better than that Brian. DaveG

Hi Brian, You seem to be talking about things which are beyond our control. I can control the pixel dimensions of my images (e.g. 1024x768) and try to "match" them with the "pixel dimensions" of the projector/monitor which shows my images and I know what LOOKS right and what looks "degraded or pixilated". I definitely do not want any 1024x768 image of mine shown full screen projected via a 1400x1050 projector. I know what it looks like and don't want it. Maybe this works for all of the WRONG reasons, but it works and others SEEM to agree. DaveG

Hi again Peter, You said: "For single Still Images I'm with you all the way!" Could that be interpreted to mean that you disagree with my theories regarding zooming etc? DaveG

Hi Peter, I think I knew where you were coming from!! DaveG

Hi Peter, I think I established earlier in the discussion that I was approaching this from a "photographic" point of view rather than an "AVer's" point of view. When applying the same logic to av I have always advocated that the pixel dimensions of a ZOOMED image, for instance, needs to be in direct proportion to the zoom percentage. (Tech-speak!!) i.e. in a 1024x768 show, if the image is zoomed IN to 200% then, for highest quality result, that image needs to be 2048x1536 (and no more) to start with. The in between bit is unavoidable. When the zoom finishes, if it finishes, it should display an ACTUAL pixels image. This way the interpolation process is always DOWNWARDS - never upwards. Same thing applies to transitions - unavoidable. But that is the AV approach - my approach to THIS discussion is from a STILL IMAGE point of view. DaveG

Too much tech-speak!! Let your eyes be your judge. The advice, when editing and image, is that you should view it at ACTUAL pixels on your monitor, regardless of the size (resolution) of your monitor. Viewing an image at anything other than ACTUAL pixels means that you are viewing an INTERPOLATED image and are not seeing what it truly looks like. Forget about 100Kb images against 2Mb images - that's a different discussion. Applying this to the computer monitor/projector chain I want the same thing - ACTUAL pixels. If I submit an image which is 768x576 and it is projected FULL SCREEN on a 1024x768 projector I can see the difference. It is interpolated up and therefore degraded/pixilated - call it what you like. The same thing applies to interpolating downwards. At our club, when digital competition began, the "committee" wanted the images presented so that all images were shown against a grey background. This meant that someone who submitted a 1024x768 image saw that image at something less than 1024x768. The problem was that someone had submitted an image in which the he/she had inserted single white pixels to represent stars in an otherwise clear night sky. The end result was that most of the stars disappeared because you can't interpolate a SINGLE pixel downwards. ACTUAL PIXELS is what I want. DaveG

Hi Brian, Talking from a photographic viewpoint (as opposed to AV), clubs and other societies who run competitions undertake that there shall be NO INTERPOLATION of images anywhere in the computer/projector chain. I take this to mean that because they have, for instance, a 1400x1050 projector they ask for authors to submit at no greater than 1400 wide by 1050 high resolution if they want their images to fill the screen when projected for judging. Organisers then have a duty to ensure that the software used to show the images does not interpolate smaller images up to full screen during judging. This is where PTE comes in with its ability to show images at "original" size. Logically, I would want the same resolution (or greater) monitor so that I can view the whole of my 1400x1050 images at "actual pixels" when preparing them for competition. I am not sure where the physical size of monitors comes in to it. It is the resolution that concerns me - actual pixels. DaveG

Henri, To the best of my knowledge only one "Photographic Federation" in the UK has decided to go for the larger resolution. Most of those who have already upgraded have gone for 1400x1050 and the rest are set to follow that lead. My personal preference is for the larger resolution but I don't think it will be with us (in competition) for a few years yet. In the AV community I think that anything larger than 1400x1050 is going to require VERY powerful computers to cope with PZR effects. DaveG

Hi Brian, I think that what we are talking about here is matching the computer monitor resolution with the projector resolution in order to see images/shows at ACTUAL PIXELS (to use Photoshop terminology) on both monitor and projector at the same time. At least that's what I would be looking for. DaveG

Henri, It is possible that your laptop (if it has a dedicated graphics card) would support a large resolution monitor. For instance, my laptop, which has a screen resolution of 1024x768 is currently attached to a 1280x1024 monitor. I can run either the laptop monitor at 1024x768 OR the monitor at 1280x1024 but not both together (only at 1024x768). I don't know what the maximum resolution of my laptop's graphics card is - it is possible that it would support an even larger resolution monitor. However I don't know how to tell what the max res that the card will support. Anyone? DaveG

Good question??????????? Is it because the secondary shows are 1024x768 on a larger resolution screen? The Menu fills the screen on anything up to 1920x1080 but the actual shows that the menu calls up are smaller. On my setup, if I don't use "autohide" and the other one I ger a blue line across the bottom of the screen. I'm not sure of the WHY - perhaps someone else can explain it better - but it works. THANKS for confirming that the demo works OK. I wonder if it is - Aaaaah Vista - my desktop and laptop are both XP and my new laptop with VISTA is still in its case. Is anyone else seeing the SLOWNESS of the site and the timeouts? DaveG

Hi Cor, Apologies if it did not run smoothly for you. Obviously, it runs perfectly on both my desktop and my laptop or I would not have made it available! What is the spec of the computer which you used for showing? Is anyone elese getting the same result? DaveG P.s. The site is running VERY slowly again with long delays and time outs.

I gave up on trying to upload, all sites seem to be getting problems here tonight. However Mediafire worked at the third attempt: Link: http://www.mediafire.com/?befycndhnvj Demo Menu Show - read the readme. DaveG

I am trying to upload a demo but this site is incredibly slow tonight and timing out frequently. If I am successful please unzip folder to desktop and read the readme. If not Ill try tomorrow. DaveG

Xaver's solution is, indeed, the BEST solution. I have just tried a simple test using his instructions and it worked perfectly. I also included Jean-Pierre's suggestion and made the "menu" slides 1920x1080 and the "show" slides 1024x768 which would allow for showing on all monitors up to 1920x1080 at "actual pixels" as well being suitable for projection on a 1024x768 projector. I used 5.5.4 for both Menu and shows. I would like to test further to see if any problems exist with PZR etc. Didn't Lyn originally suggest this a long time ago? Many thanks Xaver. DaveG.

Time to put my head above the parapet once more! I'm not sure that I like the way that the discussion about the time line is going? Good shows (especially Barrys) owe more to the quality of the images than the way they were put together on the time line. I wouldn't want to see changes made which lean towards one persons way of working more than any other persons way of working. I am quite happy with the time line the way it is. DaveG

That's the whole point of using a MENU show. You then do not go back to the desktop, you go back to your plain black (or whatever) menu background before starting the next show. I THINK(?) that was Filip's requirement. Incidentally, where is Filip? Is he still with us? DaveG

Hi Colin, One of the original poster's requirements was that the desktop should not be shown between shows. Does your BAT file acheive that? If so it is a good solution. DaveG

I would think that about 20 minutes is the most I could stand without a break. This, and the difficulties involved because each of the shows is by a different author, is why I recommended a MENU slide. When a break is needed it is easy to pause between shows. DaveG

Theoretically - Yes. But because each PTE EXE file is coming from a different member it makes it more difficult. It would probably be easier to create a MENU PTE EXE file which would allow for choosing each in turn without returning to the desktop. DaveG

Not a problem. I hate it when a person knocks a particular piece of software for personal reasons, BUT I have never been able to get consistantly good results with Nero. I was "forced" to use it when in full time employment (before retirement) and thought that it was a bad piece of work. I started using ROXIO and in spite of some of its quirks would not go back to Nero. DaveG