JPD

I quite agree with you, this is a great slideshow that made Jean-Charles Pizolatto.. There are 2 versions, one is 26 Mb 1440 x 900 pictures definition which is on Diapositif and the second 35 Mb for 1920 x 1200 nominal pictures size. (the version which is on Beechbrook) That's right. They were 4 members of Diapositif to go in Island to make photos, Jean-Charles Pizolatto, Guy Moyat, Patrick Mourava and Alain Vanhoutte. There are several slideshows about this subject all, with great photos : Le feu de la terre from Guy Moyat Vulcain Island from Patrick Mourava Lumières d'Islnde from Guy Moyat Les chemins du paradis from Patrick Mourava Glace et eau from Patrick Mourava Les portes de l'enfer from Patrick Mourava Many others haven't be published, maybe later. There are at least 2 others slideshows about Island on Diapostif's slideshow list

I often had this problem and see that also one some slideshows of friends, it often depend of the graphic card we use. An example is the slideshow of a Diapositif members here which have such problem. The topic can be see only by Diapositif's member here but what said people : Without default : Radéon 9250 en 1600 x 1200 nVidia GeForce 7900 GS Sortie DVI écran 23" 1680x1050 Radéon 9250 en 1280x960 With default : NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT GPU 512 Mo de ram Résolution 1920 x 1200 NVIDIA Ge Force 8600GT 512 Mo Sortie DVI écran 1920x1200 Radeon 9200 en 128 Mo nvidia gforce fx 5500 et 256 mo. écran 24 pouces. I made measurement and it seems Igor used the second explanation of Xaver in order to resize only once each object for best final quality (it will not for mask I think but haven't yet make measurement, so not sure). I think Igor is right to have made this choice. This little problem as often a solution, put one pixel more on each rectangle. I don't think it's a problem of quality of the resizing which is very good if you remember it is abble to resize hundred of objects more than 50/60 times each second even on old graphic card (for example Fantaisies florales)... a great job of Wnsoft.

Dave I saw your two files. What I must say to be honnest is that the resizing algorithm of PTE is very good, the problem, enough simple to solve is in logical built between screen and format. For the 3 differents mode there must be a good solution (see post #158), I am working to make it easy to understand, I haven't yet finish.

That's right and there is another problem I haven't put here : it's not the format which is resized but the main image (not always and not necessary of 90% if it is not at 100% when built), so that if you have for instance a pan on a second level picture (if first level, as there are 2 keypoints it wouldn't be resized), the 10% on each size wil not be hidden, it's another reason for which I made suggestion, I ask for that 2 years ago about. With the Cale method, no problem to resize, always the problem I explained above, of course I have a solution for it, but it would be easier for everybody, using Fit to slide, Cover or Original mode if the problem was solved by PTE itself as I suggested..

It was a 1.5 on a 1152 x 864 screen, that's never the same thing, it depend of the screen definition, it's one of the reason for which I made my proposal. Have a look on this picture I did sometimes ago to explain on Diapositif : On a 1280 width screen, there are no problems as you can see above. I tested all this screen definition. edit : sorry for 1280, it depend of it's height.

I put the example in windowed mode in order you see what happen on a 1024 x768 fullscreen , try the example in fullscreen on a 1024 x 768, you will have the same result.

On a very little example 2 things would be corrected with my proposal 1 - there wouldn't the red line (the background) on a 1024 x 768 screen when viewing a 1800 x 1200 slideshow (one of your screen for photo format). It's a reason for which values give by Size/position box are sometimes wrong. 2 - Second slide of the test would be resize when using something like "% of the slide to show main image" (see my proposal), it's impossible in the test file because there are 2 keypoints (zoom = 100%) The test is here (made with V5.6 beta 6). I don't try to do impossible things, it's why I don't try to explain you why it's better to work with original mode (for a nominal format give to PTE), you'll always work with Fit to slide mode. Nobody see that there are 2 old options which have been kill in 5.6 : 1 - Possibility to put Pan in pixels (I don't want to use Size/position box which doesn't work as PTE do : Pan is between 2 centers) 2 - Disable scaling of main images (Not recommended for the same reasons as % of the slide...) With my proposal, they both would work without problems, is it enough ?

What you ask is include in my proposal see 2.3 "Fit to height" mode will be for the use of several displays. It's today possible with V5.5 to have a sildeshow on several screens when using the Windowed mode, I made tests on 6 screens (4 at home). To day is possible to make 2 displays see by Windows like one (Dualview) if you have a graphic card with 2 output.

As nobody seems have Excel to understand and have an opinion about the proposal above, I'll prepare more explanations with draws to morrow. It's really a best solution, I think, than the Size/position box that I am always enable to use for complex slideshows and which can't be really used without mistakes when the screen definition isn't the same as nominal picture size.

All the discussion about this box make every body forget the initial Igor's question : We think that "Original size" mode brings a lot of problems: For authors and viewers: - If you create a slide with several objects that all have "Original size" mode, these objects won't be correctly placed at different screen resolutions. - Impossible to correctly export slideshow for DVD, Youtube, iPhone, because of lower video file resolution (480 x 320) - all objects will be shown incorrectly. For us as developers: - The more and more difficult to support it with all new added features. It vastly complicates the code of PicturesToExe. What you think? Some agree because they don't use original mode, others don't agree because they use original mode without the inconvenients Igor explained. I made suggestions in order everybody can work as before, even better for everybody, because no problem to made a DVD, no problem with the not exactly resize of picture with the format on screen and only one algorithm to use and not possibility to have for users problem explain about original mode object. Before Igor's decision, everybody was happy with the tool for these functions, why not keep a similar way to use PTE, it's possible. I won't answer on this topic, only on the original one where is the real question and the answers for a good solution.

PTE has the best alogorithm to resize and make smooth effect, it's quite normal that in such complex program, there are sometimes some points which aren't see in the same way by the team who make the product as by those who test and use each day the product. Would it be corrrect I don't say anything, as you I think PTE is a good product, but if we lose an important possibility it's quite normal to give an opinion, mine is exactly the same since august 25th. There are no problem for me to change the method to work, it's one when I can't do what I could.

May be a tail, but a tail which make many slideshows have a look here or here, you'll see that the minority, as you say, works a lot, there are more slideshows on each page than on Beechbrook. When I write, it's not only myself who write but a lot of people of Diapositif, and generally those of Diaporamaforum agree with me, it's not a little minority, sorry. Have you really try to understand my proposal, probably no when I read you. I only try to make PTE more useful, that's all. I don't know if you saw my slideshow, but with V5.6 I am enable to day to do the same. Look for instance at this one I did to test V5 beta 5, imagine how it be done and imagine if you could do that today.

Yes Peter, we would do. Dave, that's exact it's not really full screen, it's the maximum area which can be used on a screen, it's always full height or full width, but not easy to find the right expression, may be Fit to screen, but I am not english and not sure it would be easiest to understand than full screen is. Fit to screen is what I used in my proposal.

Peter, PTE could put as default value the screen definition or rather the size of format chosen on the current screen, but it would necessary to be abble to modify this value if we want for instance made a 1920 x 1080 slideshow and have a 1280 x 960 screen definition display (it's what I do to day with V5.52). This value could be naturally in Screen options Window (where we define format in percent), it would be better to have this value in pixels rather in percent. All this discussion show that PTE need to know nominal size for picture.

Peter, I see your example on a 1280 w 960 screen definition. The Size/position give for Size of frame 1200 x 960, that' OK for me, I understand why (it's the hight of my screen which give the value), and that also OK for White-640-480 the size indicated is 640 x 480, but : I see that this picture is very small on screen, I search why : because of the zoom : 6.4% The reason is that you have, as Igor explained to put the size of the frame at 1280 x 1024 (in your example) and it is 10000 xx 8000. So with a 1280 x 1024 frame, when I put the right values in Size/position box, I have the right size on screen and the zoom is at 50% (480/960). If we need to have always to put a parent at the nominal size we choice on each slide, why don't have the possibility to put these value only once time in screen option as I suggest in my proposal, it would easiest to understand for a beginner, easiest than explain to him that he must put the right frame in each slide.

I made a proposal about this subject here, which could solve all problems.

I think I have find a little process to add which permit to keep the actual 3 mode with using only one algorithm like in V5.6. The idea consist to translate original mode in one of the 2 others mode and give to actual algoriithm the mode to use instead of Original mode and the zoom values to use. I hope it will be possible to solve this very big problem, the proposal I did is still available. Description of the process can be download here

How does Photoshop, PaintshopPro, Pixbulder and others programs with there layers to work on all screen definition ? There must be a solution, I am working on it.

Yes, that's right, will you have always as parent the right size which made the values good ?.........No

Open it with V5.6, there are no picture, only rectangle, it work.

Maybe in your example it's good, but please look at this one, you problably change your opinion. Both rectangle, red and green are 1280 x 960 on a 1280 x 960 screen definion. Have a look in OA.

Not correct, with a cale all ojects will be always resize with the height of format, with a frame, it depend of its size it's maybe with the height or with the width and it's not the same thing (a little difference sometimes depending or format and screen definition). Another thing, if you want resize your slideshow to do a DVD, you have just to change the cale, else you have to modify your frame in each slide, too much more work. The actual Size/position tool (beta 4) seems have some problems, I just send to Peter and Igor an example. I have made 2 Excel files in which are the formulas of posts #82 and #83, they are the same, but one is complette and the other give the same result but some lines and columns are hiden. You can simulate all example using V5.52

I said I will add some informations to complete the proposal so it's I am doing : 8 - About OA Windows : 8.1 - For properties : 8.1.1 - When it's a picture, some new features would be interesting : First : give the size of the selected picture in pixels, that help to work, not obliged to see it with Explorer or other. Secondly : invert color of a picture. This feature as absolutely no sense in a slideshow but is often usefull when making a slideshow : It will possible to put at the right position an object above a main picture, I made a long time ago a ttutoril about that, it simplest to see it to understand what I mean, it's here Thirdly : Flip the picture (horizontal), like in a mirror, it would sometimes be usefull when simulate the rotation of a picture. I don't think it' usefull to have a vertical flip, to to it, it's enought to use the horizontal flip and use a 180° rotation. 8.1.2 - When it's a Frame or a rectangle, only one feaature possible : Put as default value those of the current format 8.1.3 - When it's a text, only a change which have been ask on this forum : Give the size of font as others programs do, for a default zoom at 100%. It' would be possible now because PTE would know the nominal size of format, of course like in Photoshop, a size for instance of 24 seems smaller on a 1280 x 960 picture (or format for PTE) than on a 800 x 600 picture (always format for PTE), I think it would not necessary to keep Quality option, it would always be possible to put a bigger size, twice for instance, and use a zoom of 50%. 8.2 - For common : 8.2.1 - Position, like in V5.5 : This option isn't absolutely necessary but is very usefull sometimes, else the position would be in pixels. 8.2.2 - A button to calculate and put the right zoom value in order the object become fit to parent. The value would be for the current keypoint. Would be usefull sometimes for those which doesn't resize there photos (would work as the option explain in point 5 in #83 post. Note, I thought to have the same button for Cover parent, but really I haven't imgine which utility it would have For animation, no change. I have forget Mask button, but of course it must be add as in V5.6

Xaver, Igor wrote : "I very appreciate your opinion, but it also would be interesting to hear other users what they think about this change?" Maybe you don't know but for instance 1colibri made a tutorial about the cales and original mode, it's here.. Other people as Marjolaine made many slideshows with this method since a long time, you can see some of her slideshows here. Even they are french, they are users exactly as others, and generally, because of the language, french aren't ear here, a very few of them write here, that don't mean nobody in France use PTE. Of course, there are 3 important forum dedicated to slideshows in France, most of there members (there aren't only french but also users from Canada, Belgique, Switzerland and others countries) use PTE, and one of them is dedicated to PTE, it's easiest to explain the method in french than in english, it have been explained on them, it's the reason for which french speaking people are more concerned, because many amongst them know the method and its results. I have give here my templates, very few people were interested, you are one of those who look at them and understand how it work, but not sure that Wnsoft forum members know and use the method. What I try to do is to save the fantastic possibility PTE give us, I would have prefer you try to see if my proposal is good or not. The last proposal permit to have a result better than the cale, without to have to use them, I really think it would be good for everybody. Xaver, do you really think that if I am alone to say "I have an idea" that Igor will take it ? No, absolutely no, as he says himself... see above. I would happy that others as french, do as Lin, Maureen, Morasoft...: read and try to understand the proposal and give their opinions. I answer to those who write me for more explanations. Please don't ask to people of one country to stop to write, it's make me very sad.

When we speak of original mode, it's for objects on all level but the first were we put a file or a rectangle, the hight of which is the nominal hight of our pictures and a very little width, this object is fit to screen, so all objects which are its chidren and are in original mode resample as this first level object, so their size depend also of the screen definition. It's a method in order PTE know which is the nominal size of the pictures, no more. The word "original" is because it's the name in PTE, nominal size would be more correct for the use we do. When you work like that, the number of pixels you put is the same than this we could find in Photoshop or others, it's easier to work when there are several objects and several levels, it would be sad to have a genious thing as the relationship parent-children in PTE and can't use it easily. With original mode it's possible to put exactly and easily the objects at the right place. Without this mode, it's too much difficult to try.