JPD

Yes, I wrote that and it was near finish, but since I have some problems of concentration which make me unabble to finish and am not sure to recover, unfortunately. Sorry

Here is a link for mp4 low resolution version, I haven't do a Mac version because I have nothing to test it, sorry

This sllideshow was present in Hayange festival. It was not in classification, that mean it was between the 51th and the 91 th position. Probably the Jury don't accept animation in a slideshow. It has been appreciate in 3 others galas by those who see it. That mean that we never be sad of a result which is only the opinion of few persons (the jury), neither think that good comments here make your work good for every body, because people who write here know PTE and are abble to understand the technical work, which is not the problem of other people and jury. See the discussion about this subject here and here

Xaver, just a sentence of Maurice Guidicelli on diaporamaforum (who is the webmaster of DCCN who often present slideshows in festivals or galas since many years) : About one of his slideshow who was second in Epinal : Ah! Une autre qualité dont SEUL peut s'énorgueillir mon montage "Je voudrais pas crever": C'est le seul diaporama au monde à avoir été classé DERNIER dans une manifestation. (La Coupe de France étant la seule manifestation où les montages sont classés du premier au dernier... sans mettre ex_aequo les derniers...) To make short he was the last with a sliseshow (50ème/50 for Coupe de France) and second in Epinal, with the same slideshow one or two weeks later. That mean clearely that position in festival is not the good tool and Cici is right when he is not interested by them Note : Maurice is probably one of those who tried PTE in France before everybody and one of those who promotate PTE in France

Are you sure that the position in Hayange or others is a good information ? Look at the fourth position in Hayange this year and compare with the Cici's slideshow, you probably change your opinion, at least Cici's photographies are nice. It's the opinion of 3 persons which made the positions, not the opinion of people who see the slideshow. There is always people who don't like a slideshow, that's quite normal, but here most of those who comment seems like it, like me, even if we never do something perfect (I would prefer a full sreen option, but Cici don't agree, and he is the author)

The most important for sound is That PTE use always original sound files to mixe and save inside PTE file only the datas it need to mixe these sound files, it's important to never have the possibility to convert several time a sound file which would make distorsion.

I hope i will have an answer before I am unabble to explain more if necessary

One of our member have the same problem with the slideshow of another member, he is alone to have the problem : The topic is here

You just need several graphic card. I made tests with 3 graphic cards with two outputs for each to six screens first. With six screens the max definition for each is 1024 x 768 above it's not smooth. You can't use all the effects of PTE because aa part of each scrreen recover a part of its neighbourg but fade in/ fade out, cuts and some others are available. I used a png file in copyright logo to make the law of progessivity between two scren. With video-projectors, it's necessarry to adjust this PNG file because blck of video-projector isn't black aand depend of the model. With two video projectors, 1920 x 1080 is the max value today to be smooth, above, at least on my PC, it's not smooth. For six screens I used V5.1 then 5.52 with a size of 6144 x 768 pixels and used windowed mode 6144 x 768. For 2 screens 1920 x 1080 I use V5.6 with format 3840 x 1080 (not window mode)

Thanks Etienne, for the text it's near the same technic but simplest.

Thanks Etienne, as you, I hope.

It's possible to drive several videoprojectors with PTE, I teste 6 x 1024 x 768 with V5.52. Since v5.6 you can drive only 2 but they can be full HD. Normally with 3 videoprojectors it's better each of them has a common progressive part with its neighbourg, so you normally have a smaller definition (about 2500 x 768)

This is the translation of what I wrote on Diapositf about this subject : Regarding the multi-track for the sound, it's simple in theory but complex in practice: 1st problem: defining the need (taking into account the competitive aspect) Power mix multiple stereo channels without changing source files. For each checkpoint, can adjust the level. Subsidiary questions: 1 - The value is the same or not for 2-channel 2 - Do we have the choice between linear and logarithmic law as progressivity / regressivity 3 - Number of tracks (I think commercially, it must be 4, competitor has 1 main track and 3 tracks associated with equivalent of views) I reject the hypothesis we can save directly from microphone or others as some products do, what is not, in my view, the domain of a slideshow tool. Similarly I reject all correction functions (noise, filters, equalizer, reverb etc., etc.) Ergonomics: Should there be a specific window or attempt to insert the new functions in the current ergonomics. To get an idea, I made a small preview: As we see, even with only one sound track (stereo) full scale, the square is counted, the work done on the issue of ergonomics is not an easy task. If WnSoft works on the the problem, does it not reactivate old requests such as integration of 5. 1 home theater (or even 7. 1) replacing the actual stereo (to make creative sound effects say proponents of this solution, do not usefull will say the proponents of the Hi-Fi). Another possible request, taking account of 24-bit mode because 16 bit is still far from the High Fidelity contrary to what the business try to make us believe (they say otherwise when they will do money by saying the contrary). I'm here touched a few potential problems. It is my opinion to guide Igor realistic choices that do not transform PTE in gasworks. Personally, I have only one requirement : it's that the source sound files are not modified, the settings for each track are saved in PTE and in the exe there is only a single sound file, like today, corresponding to mixing the source files according with the datas of mixing saved in PTE file.

I think there is for some people a misunderstanding about the zooms and their normal influence on the perspective. So I created a small example (template + Exe) that attempts to explain. I must add that changing the observation point doesn't change equivalent zoom of 100% for pan Z=0, if not it would be stupid.

Xaver, there is no dispute on a technical subjet, but I don't understand why you change a very simple problem in a complex one. First the field of view is given by the screen itself and the distance (and also the position of the point), nothing else. Second, it's easiest to have only one algorithm (or formulas) to calculate all the points of a 3D scene, with zoom as you describe their will be somewhere a "if" condition and at least two algorithms or formulas (that would means that objects with such zoom haven't the same observation point as others). When my eyes look at a scene, it's the same, what I see depend only of the distance and the position where I am, and since I was born, it was enough for me. If the girl I look at is not enough tall, I haven't a vertical zoom to change her, neither an horizontal zoom if she is fat. Simplest are the solutions, better they are, that's my opinion, but everybody have their owns. PS I have think a lot as everybody on the problem of the zoom which give perspective. After several hours and many tests (screencopy and modification with Paintshop), I finally found Igor was right on this subject, same thing for rotations, a not very simple problem.

It's why PTE is powerfull than others products. We often can do more things with Parents/children relationship. Which concept ? Two kinds of zoom ?

I didn't know, but it seems to me quite logical.

Exactly. it's like you choice where you put your eyes or your camera (we need distance and position)

Thanks Cor, happy it's clear because it's not easy to explain such subject, many people had difficulties to understand this. A chance for us, Jean-Cyprien is very patient and give always good explanations Here is the topic that Jean-Cyprien wrote on this subject last month (in french) on Diapositif The problem is well explained and as usual a little humoristic. The english version of his file is there Note When the topic was wrote, the two solutions I used in my file were not found

Yes or using a cropped photo

Thanks TheDom for your vote. I have well understand what you ask, but if we can change the distance of the point of observation, we can have the same result and do more things, no need to have two kinds of zooms which would be too complex for people. With a very long distance we can have a solid full screen without perpective and with a very short distance a very little solid with perspective. Normally (but I am not a programmer), it's not very complex to do : only modify the calculation of the perspective, nothing else.

I hope so, Lin, I think it's easiest to do inside PTE than how I have been obliged to do, it's enough complex and too much difficult to do for users. It's necessary for instance for what try to do Umberto.

Thanks Gilio, happy you can see it

Jean-Cyprien and myself asked for the possibiliy to change observation point parameters. Today we are like a photographer who would have only one focal (41.6mm) and would always have the subject in the center. I succeeded to simulate with actual V6 these parameters and can change the distance and the position of this point (that modify the perspective). You will find an explanation and a demonstration here : Observation point parameters