JPD

Yes, I agree and also for the problem between V4.49 and Vista when ussing "Run external application" (to day there is a black screen for a little time before the application start, another V4.49 slideshow).

As say Xaver, the most important is that PTE be quite self-explanatory, a good context help will help only english speaking people not the other and made translations of such help file would take a lot of time to people who make translations, not sure they have enough time. The initial topic wasn't about this but about mode for objects.

Even to keep 4.49 version, we need V5... and later V6... Why ? Because if Wnsoft doesn't offer functions that others offer, it will be finish for Wnsoft, so to keep V4.49 alive, you need Wnsoft and you need V5.. and V6 later, it seems clear.

I have finish to translate the topic I wrote in french and add an example of what would become impossible if there are no option for objects about mode and position (what would be simplest for many PTE users and beginners). Once a more I say, that actual PTE isn't a problem for me for these functions, I only think to those I help everydays, that's all. About proposal for several versions of PTE, I don't agree, I think 2 or 3 options as beginners, normal and expert mode is enough. Plugins seems to me a bad idea. It would be more difficult to help people to use PTE (it's not always easy). What I try to explain about objects and format would be simplest to use for everybody, but not so complete for me (no matter).

Afin qu'il y ait moins d'erreur de traduction, j'écris en français, ainsi la traduction directe de français à russe sera peut-être meilleure que français à anglais puis anglais à russe. Voici un exemple que j'ai fait pour un utilisateur PTE qui souhaitait utiliser 2 vidéo-projecteurs de 1400 x 1050 pour faire des images en cinémascope (voir ici le principe en image). L'album PTE disponible ici utilise sur toutes ses vues une cale de 1050 pixels de haut et 2 de large (fichier gif transparent). Toutes les cales sont en mode "Ajuster au format" et sont toutes déclarées dans cet exemple comme "Image principale". Toutes les autres images ou objets sont en mode "Original". Le format du montage est de 2.6667 (2800/1050), la taille nominale du format est de 2800 x 1050 et les images ne sont pas redimensionnées à cette définition. Si votre écran a une définition différente, le format s'adaptera à cette définition et déterminera une hauteur et largeur utile du format en pixels. Le fichier "Cale" de 1050 pixels de haut s'adaptera à la hauteur du format calculée par PTE pour votre écran, sa dimension verticale affichée sera 1050 x hauteur du format à l'écran / 1050, et toutes les images ou objets, enfants de cette cale seront eux aussi ajustés de la même valeur hauteur du format à l'écran / 1050, il en sera de même pour la position du centre des différents objets, la position relative des différents objets sera parfaitement respectée dans tous les cas. Dans l'album présenté, toutes les cales ont été mises comme images principales, si vous voulez transformer tout le montage en mode original, il suffit d'aller dans l'onglet "Ecran" de la "Configuration des options du projet" de cocher la case "Ne pas ajuster l'image principale à l'écran" (au format serait plus judicieux) et de cliquer sur le bouton "Appliquer". L'inconvénient aujourd'hui est que le format est géré indépendemment et masque une partie de l'image même si l'écran pourrait la montrer. Pour contourner ce problème, dans le cas de cet album, on est obligé de se mettre en mode fenêtré à 2800 x 1050 pixels. Si vous voulez réduire la taille de tout le montage à 90% pour faire un DVD, il suffit de mettre 90% pour l'option "% de l'écran occupé par l'image principale" et de cliquer sur appliquer pour que tout le montage soit réduit à 90%. Une autre solution consiste à remplacer le fichier cale de 1050 x 2 par une autre de 1167 (1050/0.9) x 2, cela donne le même résultat mais a l'avantage que cela fonctionne, même si les cales ne sont pas mises comme images principales. Le problème aujoud'hui est que lorsqu'on réduit toutes les images, le format continue à prendre toute la largeur (ou toute la hauteur, selon les cas) de l'écran, c'est la raison pour laquelle il y a sur chaque vue 4 rectangles noirs (Mask). Dans ma proposition, en définissant la taille nominale du format (dans ce cas ce serait 2800 x 1050), soit en indiquant largeur et hauteur en pixels, soit en donnant seulement la hauteur et un coefficient pour le format (ici 2.6667), il n'y aurait plus besoin de cales, c'est l'information de la hauteur qui permettrait à PTE de faire les calculs qu'il fait aujourd'hui à partir de la taille de la cale), comme c'est le cas dans l'exemple, tous les objets seraient redimensionnés et repositionnés selon le rapport "taille calculée du format en fonction de la définition d'écran" / "hauteur nominale définie pour le montage". C'est au format que l'on imposerait des options : - Format ajusté à la définition d'écran - Format utilisant x% de la définition d'écran, dans ce cas le format se limiterait au pourcentage indiqué et les rectangles noirs utilisés (Mask) ne seraient plus utiles. - Format en mode original, dans ce cas, le format pourrait déborder de l'écran si l'écran n'a pas une définition suffisante, cette option est nécessaire dans de rares cas, comme celui de cet exemple. - Format original si la définition d'écran est supérieure à celle du format, format ajusté à la définition d'écran si celle-ci est insuffisante pour afficher tout le format. Une telle définition permettrait de faire 99.9% de ce que l'on peut faire aujourd'hui, les objets n'auraient plus qu'un seul mode contre 3 aujourd'hui. Le menu serait plus simple, l'album PTE allégé et les calculs probablement moins lourds. Le seul montage qui ne serait pas compatible avec cette définition est l'album avec les cubes car j'ai utilisé l'option "couvrir le format" pour que les images de toutes tailles qu'utiliseraient les gens s'adapte à l'album, pour une application normale, cette fonction n'a pas d'utilité à mon sens. Une telle méthode éviterait aux débutants (et quelques fois aux utilisateurs expérimentés) d'avoir dans un même montage des objets de niveau 1 en mode "original" et d'autre en mode "ajuster à l'écran", comme il m'arrive assez souvent d'en rencontrer, ou des positions en pixels sur certains objets et d'autres en pourcentage. Dernier point, il serait souhaitable de pouvoir mettre un fond, (une couleur choisie, avec ou sans dégradé, ou une image) qui puisse couvrir tout l'écran au dela du format (comme on pouvait le faire avec la V4 lorsqu'on utilisait le logo d'auteur à cette fin et des images en objets), ce fond (couleur ou image ayant le même ajustement que l'ensemble des objets en fonctions des options de redimensionnement retenues. Il faudrait lui donner également une taille en pixels pour la valeur nominale du format, avec une option, en cas d'écran ayant une définition plus grande de répéter ou non ce fond. Ce fond devrait être positionné au centre de l'écran. In order that there be fewer translation error, I write in French, the direct translation from French to Russian may be better than French to English and then English to Russian. Here is an example that I made for a user who wanted to use PTE with 2 video projectors 1400 x 1050 to make images in Cinemascope (see here the principle with image). The PTE template, available here uses in all its slides a wedge the size of which is 1050 pixels high and 2 wide (gif file transparent). All wedges are with mode "Fit to slide" and all are put in this example as "Main image." All other images or objects are with "Original" mode. The format of the slideshow is 2.6667 (2800/1050), the size of the nominal format is 2800 x 1050 and the images are not resized for this definition. If your screen has a different definition, the format will be adapted to this definition and PTE will determine usefull height and width of the format in pixels. The file "Cale" (wedge) with height of 1050 pixels adapt the final format calculated by PTE for your screen, its vertical dimension will be posted 1050 x height of the format to screen / 1050, and all images or objects, children of it. This wedge will also be adjusted value of the same height format on the screen / 1050, the same will apply for the position of the centre of different objects, the relative position of different objects will be fully respected in all cases. In the template presented all the wedges (Cales) have been placed as the main images, if you want to transform the entire slideshow to original mode, just go in the "screen windows" of the "configuration options" tick box "Disable scaling of main image" and click the "Set for existing slides" button. The problem today, if we want to be in original mode, is that the format is managed independently and mask a part of the picture even if the screen could show it. To circumvent this problem, in the case of this album, one is obliged to put in windowed mode to 2800 x 1050 pixels. If you want to reduce the size of the entire assembly to 90% to a DVD, simply put 90% for option "% of the screen to show main image" and click the "Set for existing slides" button, the slideshow is reduced to 90%. Another solution is to replace the wedge file of 1050 x 2 by another of 1167 (1050/0.9) x 2, it gives the same result but has the advantage that it works, even if the wedges are not placed as main images. The problem today is that when you reduce all images, the format continues to take the entire width (or any height, as appropriate) of the screen, that is why there is on each view 4 black rectangles (Mask). In my proposal, by defining the nominal size of the format (in this case it would be 2800 x 1050), indicating width and height in pixels, or by giving only the height and a coefficient for the format (here 2.6667), there would no need of wedge,it would be the height which is the information that would allow PTE to calculations it made today from the size of the wedge), as is the case in example, all objects are resized and repositioned according to the report "format size calculated according to the definition screen" / "nominal format size set for the slideshow." This is to the format that we impose options: - Format adjusted the definition screen - Format using x% of the definition screen, in this case the format would be limited to the percentage indicated and used black rectangles (Mask) wouldn't be more useful. - Format original mode, in this case, the format could be bigger than the screen if the screen is not a sufficient definition, this option is necessary in rare cases, such as this example. - Format original definition if the screen is larger than the size, format adjusted to the definition screen if it is insufficient to show any format. (Would solve Barry's problem). Such a definition would be 99.9% of what can be done today, the objects have more than one mode against 3 today. The menu is simpler, PTE template smaller and calculations probably less heavy. The only template which is not compatible with this definition is the album with cubes because I used the "cover slide" so that images of all sizes used by people are adapted to the album. For a normal application, this function has no relevance to my senses. Such an approach would avoid the novice (and sometimes experienced users) have in the same slide objects level 1 mode "original" and the other mode "to adjust the screen", as it happens quite often to meet, or pixels positions on certain objects and other percentage.(always at level 1). Last point, it would be nice to be able to put a background (a color chosen, with or without degraded, or an image) that can cover the entire screen beyond format (as might be done with the V4 when used copyright logo for this purpose and images into objects), background (or color image) having the same adjustment that all objects dependind of the format adjustment options chosen. (As Barry try to solve on one of his slideshow with an external tools or as I do with using a V4 exe to launch a V5 one). It would also necessary to give a pixel size for the nominal value of the format for a background without picture, with an option, in case screen with a greater definition to repeat or not the background. This fund should be positioned in the center of the screen. Note : if the format chosen is 1400 x 1050 and the size of the background picture is 2800 x 1050 with zoom at 100%, the background wil always be twice the format for width. This background would be as copyright logo, for all the slides and without any effects on it. I am not sure my translation is good, I have do it as best as possible for me. Here is a template which show the 2 opportunities that PTE give us today (for special templates) and that we'll lose if there are 1 - no choice for mode object (always in original mode for nominal size of format) 2 - no choice for position object (always in pixels for nominal format) I think if these two options doesn't exist, it will always possible to do all the slideshows existing today (just the cube template and the clock template will be to change), I think that nobody else than me used these opportunities that PTE offer today. I think it would easiest for everybody and also for beginners. For me, that's no matter, I have no problem with these functions, I just lose 2 opportunities but it's not the most important.

Thanks, Xaver, you well complete my explanation, Brian, what I try to explain for objects mode would be simplest for everybody and for beginners, I don't try to make PTE more complex, only more logical. You know, PTE as it is today is OK for me, I have no problem, but I also think to all beginners I help everydays and who have some difficulties. Your idea, which is not new, as you said, is a solution, but I remember at work some program with this option, and everybody was always in "Expert mode"....

It seems my explanations aren't understand. With the technic I use today, there is one object in each slide which can be "Fit to format" or "Original mode", with this method, all the other objects are in original mode (for the nominal format). There are few examples where Fit to format or Cover format can be use for child objects, but this examples aren't absolutely necessary in normal or complex slideshow, so it would be possible to have all objects in original mode, it would only necessary to give the nominal format in pixels and choice an option between four as I wrote, for all the slides, it wouldn't be usefull to have the option "Fit to format", "Cover format" and "Original mode" for each objects, the menu would be simplest, the PTE file lighter and probably the calcultions less difficult. Igor, it's very difficult for me to be understood, so if it's not enough clear ask me questions, but please, try to understand what I explain, I really think it's the easiest and the best way. It would be easy to have an option as I explained in my first topic, there was the same problem with V4, we could choice to be in original mode but the pictures was fit to screen if the screen definition wasn't enough.

I think, it would be a solution which consist to give to PTE a nominal height, the width would be calculate with this value and the format we choice. when a picture is exactly the size of the height and its width exactly the value PTE calculate, it take all the format, if it is smaller it take a place proportionnal to its size and if it's larger the part outside the format will not appears. An option for the format could be for all the slideshow : - ajust the format to the screen definition - keep the original size (would be usefull for video-projector is you make a stereo slideshow or a panoramic slideshow with 2 or more video-projector) - keep the original size if screen definition is highter than the format, else ajust the format to the screen definition. - reduce format at 90% or another value (for DVD for instance) It would not have choice between fit to format, cover the format and original mode for objects, all would be in original mode for original screen definition, some mistakes to day possible wouldn't be possible (as having some objects at level one in original mode and others in fit to format or position in pixels and other in percents) The value in percent or in pixels would always be for a height which would be define. It's seem to me to be the simplest way to have a perfect work without using cales. Nota with this method, it would be possible to make a 1920 x 1080 slideshow on a display with 1024 x 768 screen definition, it exactly what I can do to day. Only one thing : it would be necessary to have the value of the calculated width at the paire value just under the theorical value in order to never see the background with a nominal size picture. John, I'll try to do an exemple to morrow, but you can download several templates on my page which use this method

Xaver, I think that it's easier to work the objects at the same scale, it's more normal, even for a not specialist, it's easier to add or substract than multiplicate or divide, even for me. So it would be possible to say in PTE I work for instance with 1280 x 960 and have all objects put for a such definition and when the work is finish, PTE adapt the final picture at the screen definition, it seem me very logical and it's what I do with "Cales", and I am not alone to work such a way. As I say there are many slidshows made like that. If Igor find a method which give the same result I am OK. I want to know if you agree with me it's better to have only one reference (for instance height) than two (height and width) which aren't exeactly in the same ratio if you don't use the same screen definition. I want to have in the future the same quality with PTE than those I have today, I think than everybody must think the same thing (at least, I hope). I did don't try to give the impression that the wedge/cale construction were one of the most naturals things in the world, I only say it was the best technical way to day, and if I use cale it's in order to have only one reference in order to have the best result as possible, that only what I said, no more. When I explain in french forums that's it's better to have paire size picture, you could also say it's not as a typical method for the standard PTE user, that's right but when we explain to people why, they generally understand and work with paire size pictures. When we can work better, I think it's quite normal to do it. May be the idea of the cale can be put inside PTE (or a similar calculation), why not ? At least there wouldn't be problems to resize a slideshow to put it inside the safe zone and I wouldn't have to explain each week how to do. My problem is that's difficult for me to explain here what is absolutely clear in my head to have a very simple product which is abble to be better than professionnal one. Every day I help beginners, I am probably the one who have help the more people, most of them are beginners, so I well know there problems and I want that PTE is easy to use for them, it will be also easier for me.

It's easy to keep basic function very easy to use for everybody and add some more complex function without disturb beginners. It's only a problem to solve in the menu.

Will it be possible that the mask is the result of several others mask, with all the option of a normal object (PZR ect), for instance 2 circles which move differently in order to make two spotligts, it's only an exemple, hundreds ideas and effects would be possible, Most of effects could be simulate inside a slide. Would it be possible that the mask is put on the resulting image of a parent (see above) with its child or will it be objects by objects (it's not the same result. Would it be possible to use the same mask for several objects and will what you call mask have 256 levels of opacity as an alpha layer do. Mask could have the same structure as object have : parent-child, we would have to say which object (parent or child) is the mask to use. Read here

About resampling, it seems to day you first resample all objects and then build the final picture. This method make some default and these default often depend of the graphic card and, of course, the screen definition. Would it be possible to build a picture for a parent with all its child and after resize only the parent (ie the result). An exemple imagine you cut your pictures in 16 verticals rectangles in order to make an effect, if the picture is built at its nominale size, it's perfect with PTE, if you resize a global result it would be also perfect, if you resize each object then add them as to day, there are sometimes some problems. The last one which have this problem is here (not mine, but from Francis Demange)

Igor, to day, the best way to make a perfect technical slideshow is to put a little transparent gif file for instance height=960 and width=2 pixels if my pictures are 1280 x 960. I put this file call in french "Cale" as parent of all the others objects of the slide. This "Cale" is fit to format and all the others objects are in original mode and position in pixels. So that it's the "Cale" which give the value to resize to all the others objects. It's easier like that and a better result that have all the objects in fit or cover the format and position in percents. Imagine an object put at 75% in horizontal pan which have a child also at 75% in horizontal pan where it is in the screen : it depend of the width of the parent object and you have to do several multiplication to find. With the cale and position in pixel, I have only addition (and not multiplications) to do and if the centers are at 0, I can change the size of the parent without changing the child. It's very easy with this method to have exactly the same in PTE than in Photoshop or other, you just have to have paire size and put an entire number, try to do so easy with percents. Another thing from one screen definition to another, the real format can change because it's always a paire value, so a format of 1.5 will be exactly 1.5 on a 1152 x 864 screen definition, it will be a little different value with a 1600 x 1200 defintion and the resize with fit or cover to format depend sommetimes from the width of the format and sometimes of the height of the format. With this method it depend always of the height as you do for text, tiled background picture and copyright logo which can be use also as a mask for instance. At least it's absolutely neccesary to keep an ascendant compatibility for all slideshows made with V5, when we do slideshows we can hope they will be ok for years, that's not absolutely right to day because of Microsoft (some problems appears on Vista), but we can hope that PTE will not be a problem more, Microsoft is enough Hundreds slideshows are made with this method in France most of them are in this list (all are made with PTE). We need to have an original mode. Note it would be better if all calculations depend always of the same value (height for instance) and not depending sometimes of the width sometimes of the height (I haven't test this function since 5.0) I have forgot, there is another advantage with this method, if my original "Cale" is 960, I have just to change it with another of 1067 x 2 (960/0.9) with the same name and all the slides are reduiced at 90% without doing something else, very easy for DVD.

As you say Igor, it's impossible to protect a program, and add a protection in PTE will only use power when reading a slideshow and will not really protect. The only thing I say is it's not necessary on such a forum to give tools and explanations about how to use them. Since a long time there is a tool on Mac which do the same, I have never give its name neither speak about it. To day, there is an enough good protection with PTE when using BMP (with compress option selected) or PNG file, because there are no tools abble to read the files used by PTE even if some tools can extract them. If I give this information it's for professionnal users who can use this caracteristic to protect their work (I think to those who make slideshows for marriage, birthday and so on and sale their work).

Really sorry that this topic can be read on this forum. If it's very usefull to recover files in an exe for which we lose original pictures, it's also a good tool for pirats who want to have our original files and it seems to me that this information hasn't to be here, neither on all forums about slideshows. Remember that many PTE users work with this tool and if their customers can have pictures and sound of their work, it would be worst than lose sometimes a work (it's so easy to make backup). In France, on both forums, Diapositif and Diaporamaforum, we try to don't give this kind of informations.

I agree with you for the quality, there are now Full HD TV (1920 x 1080) and a PTE file with 1920 x 1080 pictures give a wonderfull result.

There aren't often old systems, but at work, the PC are generally used for applications as Word, Excel and so on and don't need a powerfull graphic card, so when we need to use PTE at work for a tutorial for instance, it's necessary to design the PTE file in order it run fine on such PC. In big international companies for which I worked, all the PC where almost the same, in Europe, in America, in Asia and even in Africa, with the same tools on them, in the same langage (english) in order a japanese a french or an american who come anywhere in the world can work with a PC of the place he goes. Of course, there are old PC in Europe, but I think it's the same in USA, some members of this forum have problems with old PC and they don't all live in Europe. With PTE we can do exactly all what we need for the PC we have, it's really a good tool for that.

That run fine, but you can do exactly the same (without Windows' bar) with V4 and hidetaskbar.exe (from Marcovelo), with or without a button to start the slide show. I used that with V4 slideshows and now with V5, but use only V4 for start file.

It's better to rasterized in png object, so, even if people haven't the good font, their will be no problem.

I have 2 problems with beta 8, I am unable to change the vertical position of the grid and when I want to put a value for the size of the steps, it doesn't allowed we begin with another number than 1. I haven't find if there is a place were I can see the number of pixel I have move the grid. NB There was a problem in 5.1 with ctrl+X function in the text : it destroy the text object.

The grid will help many people, but would it be possible, with an option, it is center not on the top-left corner but on the center of the format. It would allow to be coherent with the values shown by the Pan I'll continue to try this version.

He was very active for a person of his age, it's a very sad news.

Look at this exemple I did for a Diapositif member, it's very simple and have good result and a perfect picture at the beginning and end of zoom.

Yes I did it with V4.49, the screen 4.49 must be the same at the beginning and end of a slideshow, so in order to have no flickering, if your slideshow is 3'20" long for instance and you want to have title, do something like : Slide 1 for Hidetaskbar duration 200 ms Slide 2 you title for instance 6 seconds and the end become the same color as Slide 3 (generally black) Slide 3 for your slideshow duration 3'22" Slide 4 a second title and son on. The reason is that when the slideshow is finishing, it need between 50 and 300 ms at the end of it to refresh the V4 screen. It was the same with V4 slideshow. I have made some little tests with V5, but quickly decide I'll continue to use V4 for that, so I haven't a great experience on that point. NB You can put a sound on each slide with title to say the name of the next slideshow or others informations, nobody think to use this possibility. and it's possible also to have several slides between each slideshow and make a little sequence to present the next slideshow. You also can put button to jump at another slideshow. All seem correct with your test festival.

I made an exemple for somebody sometimes ago, it's here.