jt49

See here (important information for existing users)! Regards, jt

I would recommend to run the project at the appropriate AR (here 3:2). Then you do not need to use masks. When creating the video at 1920x1080, just disable Pan&Scan. BTW: The virtual size of slide ( a concept that has not been sufficiently explained in the Online Help ) should not have any influence on the creation of videos, provided that the AR is OK. Regards, jt

The "Virtual Size" has been introduced when WnSoft decided to cancel the so-called "Original Mode". First of all, the virtual size defines the aspect ratio of your show. Secondly, it defines the resolution basis (reference value) for the Size/position tool in the O&A window. It defines which image size exactly is to cover the screen if you choose 100% in the Original mode tab of this tool. This is stuff for people who want to define very precise positioning of images with respect to a particular resolution of the final destination device (monitor or projector). Regards, jt

For people who submit their AV productions to AV festivals, the suggestions from above will not work. You cannot expect that the organizer of a festival will work with players for shows prepared with different AV tools. Exe presentations have to be self contained. And of course there must not be a notification during the performance. Not too long ago, I have made the experience that the resolution parameters for a festival changed from FullHD to WUXGA. But my production was save because of the exe's fixed size. PTE is said to be a professional AV program. In this case it has to provide professional features. I would regard prevention of upscaling for exe shows as such a feature. The corresponding option could placed into some menu without bothering a new user. Regards, jt

Sorry Barry, but you did not hit the point. Each exe presentations has its limitations, and the author should be in the position to decide at which maximum size it should run. I have just downloaded your sequences "Enigma" and "Another Age", quite old ones, but still very worth to watch. They look rather small on my monitor (1920x1200, see screen shot), and seem to use the fixed size feature. Would you really like to see them running upscaled? Regards, jt AnotherAge.zip

In my opinion, we should not call it a strange option. Virtual size of slide in combination with the size/position tool, this may be regarded as complicated stuff, and it causes problems to me if I try to explain it to new users. So I normally present a rough idea, and then recommend to forget about it for the first period of time. But having an option to limit the output size seems to me a quite natural one. Think of 4K (although it will take time until Photo/AV clubs will a able to afford appropriate projectors). People will have lots of images which will be a little bit too small to cover 4K (e.g. most of my images shot with my Canon 400D). So it would be fine to have the option for limiting the output size. OK. "Fixed size of slide" sounds odd. That's true, but not worse than "Virtual size of slide". You may give this feature another name (e.g. "Maximum display size", or "Don't display at larger size ...", or ...). Making the use of PTE more intuitive should not result in killing useful functionality. Best regards, jt

Here I do not see any danger at all, as there is no need to change an exe file. Exe files are temporary outputs of AV projects and not made for eternity. I normally develop my projects with images at full size, and of course I keep these original projects. In oder to export exe presentations perhaps at various resolutions, I create copies of my original projects just including images at reduced sizes. Thus, my exe presentations are optimized with respect to performance and file size, and they should never be upscaled. Maybe, at a later point of time, I may want to have a version of higher resolution. Then I can create it from my original project. It will run at the desired higher resolution, but again, it should not be upscaled either. If PTE will loose the said feature for exe presentations, there will be the danger that a show that has been optimized for a particular environment will loose its quality if it is used in some other place. And again: PTE will loose compatibility. Best regards jt

I also see the aspect of compatibility. It has always be an advantage of PTE being upwards compatible. I often open older projects with new versions of PTE in order to use new features. If we will seen uncontrolled upscaling, compatibility will be lost. Regards, jt

(I extracted this post from the topic "Grouping of options intended for EXE files" The post is a reply to the post here Igor Kokarev) _______________________ I would regard this as a loss! In most cases I prepare my shows for a precise screen size, e.g. 1920x1080 or 1920x1200. In some cases they might be run at 2560 x 1440. Then, "Fixed size of slide" will prevent upscaling. Regards,jt

There are similar "problems" in the Slide Options (Main > Run external application), and in Objects and Animation (Common > Action on mouse click). Question: Would it make sense to give single options a kind of label that should indicate that the option in question does not apply to video outputs? Of course, there will be some odd situations. The option "Fixed size of slide" (which I would call "Fixed size of screen") does not apply to the size of a video output, but it determines the aspect ratio of the show. So there is a kind of influence. Just another question on the Project Options: Wouldn't it be better to delete the Audio Tab in the Project Options, while having an Audio Button in the bottom toolbar? Regards, jt

Logarithmic or exponential increase? Regards, jt

I would like to second this statement. When I give a lecture while using PTE, I use to prepare the texts for my slides in LibreOffice with transparent background, export the documents to PDF, import them into Photoshop, and export the MediaBoxes as PNG images. This may sound complicated, but once you are used to this process it really works with a few clicks. Of course it would be fine to have rich text features in PTE. Regards, jt

Which PTE version do you use? I made a test with 7.5.10, and 8.0.6. Both versions indicate just one conflict when trying to produce a backup in zip (but not all conflicts at the same time). So you can solve one conflict, start the backup process again, and then you handle the next one ..... Regards, jt

Sorry, but my remark does not refer to your production. It just explains to Dieter how to realize transitions of still images with a video as a common background, and hopefully it is an appropriate answer to his question. Regards, jt

Es gibt keine zweite Bildleiste in PTE. Du kann jedoch dasselbe Video in aufeinander folgende Szenen (Slides) einfügen, das erste davon als Master, die weiteren jeweils mit Link dazu festlegen. Dann kann das Video im Hintergrund über die Szenengrenzen hinweg durchlaufen. Gruß jt

Chessapup, this discussion is not a new one. You may have a look here. Regards, jt

There are not only the video editors, but also the classical AV editors like Wings and m.objects that should be mentioned here. These programs use mainly independent multiple image tracks. Transitions take place between consecutive single objects (images, videos) on the same tracks. This model has its advantages when using overlapping objects, in particular objects (animated or not) that live for a long time (longer than the typical lifetime of a PTE slide). PTE has only one image track, but the objects on this track are complex scenes (called slides), and transitions take place between these scenes, not between single images (or videos). Inside the scenes we have hierarchical structures, so called scene graphs (here called parent-child-constructions), and these constructions are the major reason why PTE is ahead of its competitors regarding animation. In my opinion, it is not an easy exercise to keep PTE's concept of transitions between complex hierarchical scenes, and the introduction of additional image tracks. There might be ways to do it ..... Regards, jt

Did you try to start PTE 8, and then open the old projects (*.pte files) via PTE's file menu (File > Open). Maybe you have problem with file associations? Regards, jt

It is quite interesting to read these suggestions, but I see some kind of problem here. The PTE editor works exactly with those media (images and audio clips) that the user enters into the PTE application. PTE typically handles this data in a non-destructive way. The features that are asked for are (to some extent) destructive. So what should PTE do in case of trimming an audio clip? Here we see a difference between PTE and two other (continental) AV tools which do not run the entered media directly, but which work with automatically generated copies. This allows to resize images and to work out destructive operations on audio clips. If needed, these programs can always go back to the originals and generate new copies. IMO the new suggestions contradict the way that has been used by PTE until today. Regards, jt

I'll try to do my best without writing a book. The attached project shows the case of a single image that is animated across several slides (here 3 slides) using 2 key frames. Your example is slightly more complicated but can easily derived from the method provided here (see also my post 8). Here we see an image (SD_blur) with a combined pan and a zoom (both with speed options 90/90 (acceleration with smooth stop)) starting in slide 2, and which ends within slide 4. The simple trick (as far as I know invented by Jean-Cyprien) works as follows: You insert the same image (here: SD_blur) into all three slides (2, 3, and 4) using 2 key frames. For animation start and end, insert corresponding values for positions and zooms. Then run through all starting key frames, and enter positive or negative values (milliseconds!) into the boxes 'Key frame time' in a way that in all slides the absolute start times coincide. In my example we see: 00:06.150. Do the same with the end times, in my example: 00:20.750. That's it This is a kind of workaround. During execution, the animated image is loaded and processed 3 times. Not elegant, but it works. I have been asking for a long time to see a better mechanism to link images and their animations across slides. Let's see what will happen. Regards, jt ZAS_2.zip

512 is a power of 2 (2 to the 9th power), typically a number that computers like to have. It might be more convenient to have 1024, 2048, or 4096 (2 to the 10th, 11th, or 12th power). On the other hand, 512 does not work that bad. Chose the appropriate size for the mask container, while choosing for the mask just the aspect ratio that you like to see. Examples: 510x340 for 1.5 (3:2), 512x288 for 16:9, 500x400 for 5:4, 512x384 for 4:3, etc. Use the Windows calculator Regards, jt

Again we have the situation where two more or less independent problems are discussed in a single thread: 1. Zoom (or any other animation) across several slides (the question of the original poster) 2. The question how perspective correction for zoom should work. My example in post 8 refers to problem 1. This post includes a remark on Denis' example on correction for zooms. Denis' example includes a nested group of 11 rectangles whose sizes decrease exponentially (by a factor of 2 from step to step with an overall zoom of 102400%). Linear zoom in PTE really is linear. So, what we see in the first part of the example is quite natural. What Denis wants to see (third part of the example) is a visually linear growth of his exponential rectangles. So what he asks for is just a standard exponential zoom. Part 2 of the example shows PTE's option "Perspective correction for zoom". This function is even more extreme than a standard exponential growth. Here we see exponential growth while the time points run following a geometric series. So in Denis' example, the zoom starts slow and ends up very fast. Which kind of zoom is to prefer? When using zooms from 100% up to say 300% (the range that I normally use for normal images), the given perspective correction isn't that bad. Question: Who normally uses zooms from 100% to 102400%? Regards, jt

Part of the sequence using Jean-Cyprien's method. Regards, jt Zoom-J-C.zip

There is a much more sophisticated solution shown by Jean-Cyprien by placing key frames outside the slides' time intervals, see here. Nevertheless, this is only a workaround. What we really need is the feature of linking images and animations across slides that hopefully is still on Igor's to-do-list, see here. Regards, jt

Wouldn't it be fine to have the option for the mini player's screen to be shown in a separate window that could be placed on top of the editor? Regards, jt