aplman

Great idea, Barry! Absolutely essential, I feel. However, I would go further. I would like the option to specify which combination of the four "speial keypoints" should be automatically included for each slide - SlideBegin, PrevEffectEnd, NextEffectBegin, and SlideEnd. I would normally choose PrevEffectEnd and NextEffectBegin, in other words the beginning and end of the "Pure Slide Time". In my most recent project, I wanted to animate every slide. Having this facility would have saved me at least ten mouse clicks or movements per slide, over five thousand operations in total. Ken T (APLman)

No, alas, not so. With both options turned off, the duration shown on the slide includes the incoming transition. Ken T (APLman)

If "Slide Duration" meant just the pure slide time (i.e. excluding the transition times), as I have previously suggested, would not all these problems disappear? And explaining to new users would be simple. Ken T (APLman)

In previous versions of PTE, "slide duration" included the incoming transition time, but not the outgoing transition time. Now in Version 7.0, we have the option to choose whether or not the outgoing transition time is included as well. A third possibility would be that "slide duration" would mean the time the slide is fully visible, exclusive of transitions. We do not have that option yet, but to me, it seems the most natural, the cleanest, the most sensible way. If that option was implemented, I would use PTE that way all the time. If I remember rightly from my unhappy experience of ProShow Gold, that is the Photodex way. (That is the ONLY thing I prefer about ProShow - PTE wins hands down otherwise!). Now that the wonderful WnSoft designers and programmers have given us two ways of specifying "slide duration", COULD WE PLEASE have that that third way implemented? The Slide List display would then show transition times and pure slide times separately and exclusively. All displayed times would be independent, and all would add up to the total show time. Changing a transition time would have no effect on slide duration. That would be a neat way to work, and my preferred way. Igor, thank you for considering this. Ken Travers (APLman)

I would like to support Barry's idea, but I feel I should express Lin's comment differently. I don't believe the PTE file actually "saves" the whole sound file - it simply saves the name and location (path) of the audio file. (If there are cached files involved, I may be wrong, but I hope not!) So I believe you don't actually want the audio file "edited" (which implies altering the stored file) - you just want the relevant portion stored in the exe file, not the whole original sound file.

With my suggestion, there would be no need whatever for that facility to be removed. I'm sure the WnSoft programmers could see to that. Ken T (APLman)

The present situation isn't too bad for one simple reason - that's how PTE has always been up till now, and we have got used to it. However, a recent post by Igor himself shows that he would rather find a better way. I agree completely. That's what we have now. I am suggesting that we SHOULD have the possibility of incoming and outgoing effects, as well as transitions. My idea is that effects attached to a slide would take precedence over a transition between slides. The whole idea of one or both effects being attached to a slide is that they would be moved with the slide. Any transition between two slides that happens to be suppressed because a slide-attached effect takes precedence, would still be there in the specification ... just not visible in the showing. If the slide with the attached features was moved, the old transition would become effective again. (That's just one possible way it could be implemented - I am confident Igor and team will find the right solution, usable and probably elegant as well!) Ken T (APLman)

Glad you like the idea, Barry! Thank you for your vote. Thank you, too, for the helpful chat yesterday. Ken T (APLman)

Thank you Igor. As I have had reason to suspect many times ... you are a very reasonable man! Glad you liked my idea! Best Regards ... and thank you for a giant leap forward with PTE 7.0. Ken T (APLman)

Hi Barry ... No, I'm certainly not suggesting as per your reference above. I'm not sure how to get the forum to refer to previous posts, but let me try ... this is a previous suggestion: http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?app=forums&module=post&section=post&do=reply_post&f=9&t=12872&qpid=83207 I do know what computers are good for, and people who want absolute creative control do not have to use the facilities that I (and others like me) would find extremely useful. What I have suggested, partly in my recent post, and previously in the post whose link is above, should be an aid to creativity and definitely an aid to productivity. Ken T (APLman)

I would like to suggest that a separate forum section be set up for discussion of beta versions of PTE. There have been so many different comments/bugs/suggestions covered in one topic - it seems to me to be unwieldy. Within a PTE Beta sub-forum, it would be much nicer to see each matter as a separate topic. Ken T (APLman)

Good question, and I'm glad you asked it! I have been waiting for the same feature with still slides with Sound Comment attached. It was "promised" (well, perhaps I should say "mooted") a year or so ago, but has been delayed - or shelved? I find Sound Comments very useful, but only if they can be heard! It's not practical to reduce the background level manually, because it's imperative to have the ability to move slides with sound comments, and that requires the background to be reduced in a different place. Having this done by the PTE software would be wonderful ... and isn't that the sort of thing computers are good for? Maybe this need will be answered in version 7.5? Ken T (APLman)

The introduction of video into PTE has led to changes in the handling of Slide Duration . Ensuing discussions have brought to light a few difficulties, some of which relate to Transitions. I understand Igor is still wrestling with ideas. I would like to put forward the following idea concerning Effects and Transitions. Transitions generally may not have any relationship with a particular slide - they simply provide a visually appealing way of progressing between two slides, and have as much connection with the second slide as with the first. On the other hand, sometimes a particular slide needs a particular incoming effect, and/or a particular outgoing effect. Some slides may need both incoming and outgoing effects. For example, we may want to introduce a new subsection of a show by unrolling a "curtain" with title or description, and after the appropriate interval, rolling it up again. These effects need to be kept with that particular slide, if any movement, reordering or copying takes place. I suggest that the Customize Slide dialog, which currently has Main and Effect pages, could have additional pages for Incoming Effect and Outgoing Effect. Any effect specified in those pages should be attached to that slide, and should go with the slide when it is moved. Effects specified in this way should take precedence over any transition before or after the slide. My own preference for the display in the Slide List would be for transitions (in the current sense) to be shown between slides, rather than above the incoming slide. I have not thought this through in the case of video slides - I leave that to Igor and team.

Barry, thank you for your interest. Your first question is an easy one ... My own judgement on the importance and interest of each slide. I do not like having the same uniform duration, slide after slide. I suspect your second question is very insightful. I tend to use the time line only when I'm adding music. Perhaps I do not yet fully appreciate the timeline's benefits - but I'm open to ideas. Thanks again Ken T (APLman)

Thank you, Shaila, Dave, Barry, Peter, for your helpful suggestions. However, my comment was meant to be not a plea for help, but rather a suggestion as to how PTE 7 might be made even better. Probably it should have been under "Ideas and Suggestions for New Versions", but I was hopeful of influencing version 7. Too late now, I suppose! Ken T (APLman)

Igor, thank you for the detailed explanation - much appreciated. I suppose it's not "useless" if many existing users are familiar with it and rely on that behaviour. I agree it's not logical to regard one transition as belonging to the slide, but not the other. I have a new thought on this, which I will put in the "Ideas for future versions" section. Anyway, Igor, thank you so much for continuing to look for the best way! Ken (APLman)

Before I discovered PicturesToExe, I tried several free programs to make slideshows of my travels. Then in search of better quality results on DVD, I actually BOUGHT four other programs, all of which disappointed me. From the moment I started to play with PicturesToExe, I was thrilled! Yes, thrilled - that is not an exaggeration. Three of those four others have not been touched since. The remaining one I have occasionally used for quick shows, and to include video clips. Now that PTE can do that, I have no need whatever for the others. Hearty thanks, very grateful thanks, to the WnSoft team ... and the incredibly helpful forum members. Ken Travers - Australia.

There has been much discussion about the change to the handling of Slide Duration. It seems to me that there are still problems associated with the new way. Although I have less experience with PTE than the many experts who frequent this forum, and do such a fabulous job of assisting the rest of us, I see one aspect clearly that I don't believe has been discussed adequately. If my understanding is correct, prior to the more recent betas of version 7, "slide duration" meant the time between the beginning of the introductory transition, and the beginning of the next transition. In other words, "slide duration" included the time of the introductory transition, but not the time of the concluding transition. Why one and not the other? Why is the relationship of a slide with its "before" transition more special than the relationship of a slide with its "after" transition? I expected, when I was new to PTE, that the duration would be exclusive of both transitions. That seems to me to make more sense to a new user. I understand that the new scheme means that the specified slide duration includes both before and after transitions. That causes problems when the specified duration is not sufficient to include both transitions. It also means that the time a slide is clearly shown is less than the specified duration by the sum of its before and after transitions. I don't like that at all! If it's not too late for version 7, may I suggest that it would be far more sensible, more intuitive, and far more convenient, if the duration specified excluded both transitions? That would mean that any positive number of seconds would be acceptable for slide duration (and that makes sense to me), and any change to transition time would have no affect on slide duration. It has been mentioned that a benefit of the old scheme was that the overall show time could be derived simply by adding up all the slide durations. Surely we don't have to do that addition for ourselves? The total show time is already on display. In the scheme I am suggesting, the show time would be the sum of all the slide durations plus the sum of all the transitions. That makes good sense, does it not? Does anyone agree? What does Igor think?

This sounds like a good idea -- but it should be a SLIDE object, not a screen object. It could waste screen space, however, as all other objects would be indented. Ken (APLman)

My shows are all travel stories, and I like a little subtle animation (pan and or zoom) on every slide - keeps my viewers interested! I love the existing animation features. However, it has needed hundreds or thousands of mouse clicks per project. Most of these would be eliminated if there was a way of adding keypoints to the main image of a batch of slides. I would like to be able to choose any or all of SlideBegin, PrevEffectEnd, NextEffectBegin and SlideEnd, and have those keypoints added to the main image of each selected slide. I promise I would use this ability on every slide in all my projects, and every thousand keystrokes or mouse clicks would be reduced to a dozen or so.

We don't need new names! SLIDE is a fundamental concept in PTE, and is the right name for the "container". SCREEN is totally different. There is only one screen (or maybe two). There may be multiple WINDOWS within a screen. A slideshow does not have many screens, it has many slides. PARENT/CHILD is a fundamentsl concept in computing and software generally. It's what gives PTE so much of it's flexibility, compared to layers etc. It's worth learning! Igor, please let us have both ways of changing between "Fit to Slide" and "Cover Slide" - default for new slides, and ability to apply the change to selected slides. Thanks Igor for guiding us in the best direction. Ken (APLman)

This may be a more up-to-date view of the PC standards: Click here Seems 1920 x 1080 is known as "HD 1080". Ken T. (APLman)

Thank you Anthony for your interest. I am using version 6.5.7, so I'm up-to-date with the latest sound capabilities. I like what has been done so far, but my suggestion seeks to make life easier for those of us who are frequently changing and improving their shows. I feel we have to be able to add or remove slides, change durations, change voice comments, and so on, without having to make detailed individual changes to volume levels every time. I want to be able to specify that the background sound should be reduced to a desirable level whenever a sound comment comes along. I think the concept is simple enough, and I trust Igor and his team to make the right decisions as to detail. It has already been agreed and promised that this facility will be in PTE in due course, and I for one will be delighted when it's available. Ken T. (APLman)

I have previously suggested a very desirable enhancement: the ability to cause background sound volume to be reduced when a sound comment (attached to a particular slide) is played. Some months ago, Igor indicated that this feature would be implemented, but it has not appeared yet. Now I would like to improve my suggestion. Previously I suggested that in Project Options, a volume adjustment factor could be specified, to be applied to the background volume level whenever a sound comment is encountered. I now think I have a better suggestion. For clarity, let's call the background sound "music", and let's call the sound comment "voice". I would dearly love the ability to specify the desirable music level in relation to the actual volume level of the voice ... for example, to say that music volume should be no more than 15 percent of the voice volume. Even better might be to be able to specify the factor for individual sound comments. Naturally we would expect to specify fading down/up before/after the voice passage. I realise this is a bigger challenge for the programmers, but it would allow us to make changes to music or voice passages without having to re-work the other. Thank you Igor for giving this your consideration. Regards Ken T. (APLman)

Mick, I think you can achieve your aim by (1) Untick "Synchronize Music and Slides" (2) rather than setting your background music in Project Options, use Customise Slide and the Music tab. Each of your background pieces can then be set to begin playing at a particular slide, and moving sections of slides with their music should be possible. Regards Ken T. (APLman)