JPD

I just tried, there is only 1 mp4 that's all for me ?? #15 used

Oui, c'est bon, ainsi tu es comme dans la V4, taille fixe en pixels si écran>size of slide, sinon ajustement à l'écran.

I also propose "Workspace" like in Photoshop, maybe it would be better, because it's really the workspace inside of which you put your pictures. What do you think for this name ? (In french it's "Espace de travail", not sure of my english translation).

On others programs it don't like size which can't be divided by 16 (for instance 1920 x 1080) because the blocks inside the format, I don't know how Igor succeeded to do in order we don't have this problem.

I am demoralized by the behavior of certain persons who have take advantage of their administrator's possibilty to destroy in the past a post where I presented one of my slideshows. As you can see initial post disappeared, the first message of the topic being an answer. I thus puts back the link of the aslideshow : Le jeu de taquin

Many people, even good users don't find easily how to use Masks, maybe a more intuitive screen and function would be useful in the final version.

I just send to Igor a mail in which I try to explain how the initial problem about Original mode can be solved. I will be happy when the use of original mode will be the same as before, nobody had problem with it, and since we have the definition of format in pixels, it's now very simple to do : .........................Only four "IF" function and a two divisions more, that's all.

Many thanks for pause button, many people are happy to have this feature, very useful.

Igor wrote me about it, but to day I am not sure that my proposal have been understood, he is always working on his Size position box, I am very pessimist and tired. Many people seems not understand that we have finally a screen format very interesting for slideshow which is avalaible for many years, at least 10 or 20 years, the full HD format and we can use it without any resizing inside PTE if we use the original mode (for nominal format of course). When you put the position of a picture in percent you aren't abble to say if each pixel of the picture if not at 0% of pan is exactly on one pixel of the screen, if not your picture's pixel will be calculated on 2 or 4 screen's pixels with a lose of quality. It's the same thing when you use Fit to slide or Cover slide, you are enabble to say if your picture is resized or not when it's on level 2, 3, 4 or more level. Why have soo perfect camera as we have to day and add this default. PTE, since the beginning had this wonderfull possibility that others haven't, it's now we are losing this quality, just at the moment we can use it better than never.

About test of beta #8, I just have test mp4 function, now I must say the result is good, better than all tests I did before to ask for 20 000 Kbps and 50/60 fps options. Of course, today, it's difficult to use full HD at 60 fps, but it's begin to be possible, I have test during 16 hours since yesterday and have write a report in french here (haven't enough time to translate). Bravo to Igor and team for this work. I'll test other new features to morrow. Just a question to Igor, I did several versions of Versailles in mp4 60 fps, the one at 10 000 Kbps need less power than the both at 7 800 Kbps ant 12 000 Kbps, have you an explanation to give me, I haven't any idea why. Note : It seems that a little bug about the frame server PictureToExe Video Codec has been fixed, there was on the left of the frame a line of one pixel grey and the picture resize inside all the other part on V5.52 and now it's perfect.

As I suggested years ago (after have made Jeu de taquin more than 4000 goto) : with $15 for absolute value and 15 for relative value, if the slide position is change, the value is change, like in Excel or others. Also possible is to give a name to the slide and give the name in the function, always like in Excel or others. It's the simplest way and many people use that in others programs.

Thanks Igor, no matter for default value, I'll put explanations about this feature on french forums. Many thanks for the Pause button, many people will be happy

Here is the link to the word document about "3 modes as V5.52 with only one algorithm as V5.6" I send 5 days ago to Wnsoft, I always hope it will be useful for Wnsoft and for PTE users.

If you don't put option, it would be useful to be abble to have inside the exe the possibility for author to extract like we do with the zip file the complete template, of course with a password. I made such a test in one of my slideshow, it's possible. Sometimes people lose there templates and pictures, a crash of hard disk for example) and ask we recover there pictures, it was possible, it is not today.

I agree with you, I made the same request some days ago, this feature would be useful

Have a good birthday Amitiés Jean-Pierre

Nice photos, but I think it's also possible to do the same thing with V5.5, but with PNG when you used JPG and mask with 5.6.

Is it always or, as I hope, only an option ? Thanks for mp4, must be nice, but haven't test at this moment.

These 2 versions of PTE don't work the same for this function. In V5.5, as you explained, the window can be greater than the screen and can be display on others screens, very useful for some slideshows using several video-projectors (more than 2). In V5.6 (beta 6) the windowed mode without a border is ajusted to the screen when screen definition smaller that PTE window, also very useful sometimes and with a border, the border is full screen when screen definition no enough great and inside we have 2 black parts when the format of screen different of the format of the slideshow. Try to put a window 1920 x 1080 with a border on a 1280 x 960 screen. It's the reason for wich there are 2 options in my proposal, both are useful sometimes.

I don't see anybody have this problem, PTE doesn't modify the pictures, so your problem is very incomprensible for me. Make a screen copy and compare it with original picture in Photosop or other.

I just send you a word document in which are all the differents posts with suggestions, it correct some suggestions we don't need since it' possible to have the 3 modes, the document is more homogen and easiest to use for you.

I wrote 6 weeks ago : About frame per second, I made hundred tests on 4 PC, and now, I am sure that it's may be enough for slideshows without anything moving, but for slideshows as Fantaisies florales where there are objects and texts moving, it's not enough, I made tests by steps of 5 fps from 25 to 100 fps, it's correct at 60 fps (of corse the frequency of the screen is at the same value), 50 fps on a 50fps TV is near OK but not perfect. Most of PC can't have less than 60 images per second but a part of them can't go at 100 images per second, so with a video at 50 fps, it's not always possible to have a smooth result, it's easier with 60 fps and on modern TV, at least in France, it's possible to choice between several values as 50 and 60 images per second, so it seem that to have a good result with slideshows with effects, the good value is 60 fps. I have made many tests with other tools to do MP4 at these differents values, and it's possible to have 60 fps on 1 250 000 pixels format (for instance 1280 x 960), above the power of actual PC isn't enough, it will be probably possible later (1, 2 or 3 years). It would be nice to have this possibility with PTE ( made test at 14400 Kbps). Of course it needs modern PC, that isn't good for old PC So, I am very happy to.read this good news, many thanks.

I have prepared this explanation for the following purposes: - to give to Igor and the team at WnSoft the details of the formulas that they will need in order to program my algorithm into PTE - to give to those who currently use Original mode, reassurance that this new method will give the same end result as now - to give to those who currently use other modes, reassurance that this new method will give the same end result as now I have made available the following material: - an Excel spreadsheet file containing the formulas (link here) - a gif file that is an image of the spreadsheet for those who would like to see the spreadsheet but don't have Excel (link here) - a zipped PTE project file that demonstrates the result of using v5.52 as we do today and the same result achieved using my algorithm (link here) - an image made up of some screen-scrapes that shows which fields have been used in the O&A window (see below) Test of the process : The PTE project contains pairs of images (#2 and #4, #6 and #8, #10 and #12). Slides #2, #6 and #10 are the ones set up using v5.52 features as we do today. Slides #4, #8 and #12 are the ones set up using my algorithm. This was achieved by entering into the spreadsheet the appropriate values (the same values that we would have entered via PTE if it had the algorithm already built in). I then took the calculated results and keyed those numbers into those fields which are available today in v5.52. Yes, it is only a simulation of the algorithm but it is, I believe, a very accurate simulation. Slide #2 demonstrates the result for objects that use "Original mode" as many people use with v5.52 today. Slide #6 demonstrates the result on objects of all three of the modes: "Fit to Slide", "Original" and "Cover slide". Slide #10 demonstrates the result on a rotated object (one object from each of the three modes). The real test comes from slide #13 onwards. Here I show the pairs of slides, one after the other. The only way you should know when the slide has changed is to watch the number at the top of the screen. In order not to confuse you with too much information, my examples all have the Level1 object as "Fit to Slide". I have two other spreadsheets that handle the situation when Level1 is "Original" and when Level1 is "Cover slide". I can make these available to anyone who wishes to study them. And I will obviously make them available to Igor and his team. Using this algorithm and with the virtual Format as parent as explained in post #82, there will be no need for anyone to change anything – so all users should be happy. And there will be only one algorithm to code now and to test in future - which should make everyone at WnSoft happy. Also, we no longer need the "Size/Position…" window! Finally, with this solution, we no longer need point 5 of post #82. Simpler for everybody!!!! Thanks to Peter to help me for translation

What would nice is to do the same with V5.6, without needing a Cale and using original mode and position in Pixel without needing a Size/position box.

Dave, Here are 2 tests with Cale method I did with the template you send me, one is 100% the other 90%. as you can see, it's exactly what you did, I just modify two files in order to have no default, the weight is only 2 722 Kb, I used only JPG, vs 11 715 Kb for yours (made with V5.52). There were problem with your fullscreen test at 1024 x 768 and 1152 x 864 screen definition and for your 90% screen test a problem at the same screen definition plus at 1280 x 960 (1024) The two tests I did have no problem from 800 x 600 to 2048 x 1536, I have test them on 10 screen definition. I haven't use 1 pixel more pictures but another way to correct the problem of black lines. As you also can see, the 90% screen version haven't the problem of objects outside. What I did would be possible with Fit to slide screen because it's only 2 levels project, but would be more difficult to do than with Cale method, it would be so easy to do as Cale method with the sugestions I did. I will put the templates if people are interested to see how I did.