exe-file brings no smooth motions

[Gerdi]

When I produce an exe-file with my pte-software the result ist not very good when I use Zoom-effects. There is also always a jerking directly after fading from one picture to the next picture.

Does anybody know how to solve this problem?

Gerdi

[Lin Evans]

When I produce an exe-file with my pte-software the result ist not very good when I use Zoom-effects. There is also always a jerking directly after fading from one picture to the next picture.

Does anybody know how to solve this problem?

Gerdi

Be sure you have the latest Direct X (9c). You can tell by clicking on Start, the Run then type in dxdiag and press ENTER. Use the tabs on the resultant popup to see which version you have installed.

If you have the latest Direct X and still don't have smooth movement, then you graphical environment is probably too week for the hardware rendered shows. An updated graphics card will usually do the trick very well. While you are checking with dxdiag, see how much video RAM you have and which graphics card and which graphical adapter (probably an older one such as AGP or else you're using a notebook). If you look on the web you can find some very powerful graphics cards for the AGP bus such as the ATI Radeon 9800 Pro for under $100. These are extremely good cards and will run any graphics quite smoothly.

Best regards,

Lin

[Ken Cox]

download Igor's samples here

http://www.picturestoexe.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=4327

also supply info on your system and graphic card so Igor can give you more info if necessary

ken

[Gerdi]

I have directX 9.0c and a Radeon 9600 pro and "much" RAM (1 or 1,5 Gb).

The movements are very smooth except directly after fading from one picture to the next. There is a short, but visible jerk. It seems like a bug, because all other movements are very smooth.

I just tried different effects. And the "probleme" appeard with all tried effects (not only fading). It even happens in the preview mode...

Does anybody know anything about this problem?

Gerdi

[Igor]

Please try this slide show created in v5.00:

http://www.wnsoft.com/apr/show/PteShow.zip

How it plays on your PC?

If this slide show also has problem with smoothness, please download and install latest drivers for your video card from ATI web site: www.ati.com

[alrobin]

The movements are very smooth except directly after fading from one picture to the next. There is a short, but visible jerk. It seems like a bug, because all other movements are very smooth.

Gerdi,

I experience the same effects when I try to run a complex v.5 show with my monitor resolution set too high.

Try setting it to 1024x768 (or 1280x768 if you have a widescreen monitor).

[JPD]

Does anybody know how to solve this problem?

It happens some times, but I haven't find to day a good exemple to give to Igor. What also happen on old graphic card is a non linearity in the effect when the volume of calculation change.

The problem (start late and jump) is not only on zoom, but also on rotate and horizontal Pan (I never see that on vertical pan, I don't know why).

The reason seems to be too much calculations at the same time.

[ADB]

I think it's reasonable to expect that an exe presentation will have its limits as to how many zooms or animations are occurring at any one time, these limits will naturally increase as video cards become faster and CPU's more advanced it wasn't that long ago that a standard video card struggled to perform a simple smooth dissolve during a exe presentation - oh how far PTE has come!

The great thing is if you want to produce an incredibly complex presentation with lots of zooms, animations, fades and effects you are able to do so limitlessly if you are producing a DVD file :-)

And the way the internet is speeding up Video files are becoming increasingly faster to send via the internet there will possibly come a day that exe files may be the least used output format of PTE but for the time being they do allow you to produce an incredibly compact file offering a very high quality presentation.

[Allogagaw]

I was watching this thread with great interest because I was having the same problem!!!

One thing I just discovered is that I made a show with about 10 different objects all moving in different directions. The transition for this effect was very smooth and exactly what I wanted!

Two slides later I did a very simple zoom and the next slide was a very basic pan. They were both jerky and I was very unhappy with how it looked!

I could not figure out what was different between these two slides IN THE SAME SHOW!

It turns out that all the moving objects were fairly small and the slides that were jerky were 1200 x 900.

When I reduced the size of these two pictures to 800 x 600 both the pan and zoom cleaned right up!!!

Mark Wilbur

[Lin Evans]

Hi Mark,

That almost pins down the issue to resources. Possibly video RAM or not enough video power to crunch all the numbers but the more likely is video RAM. When the smaller files run smoothly and the larger ones don't the common difference is the file size (not dimensions but actual size in bytes). If you could check the difference in the file size between your smaller and larger files it might reveal where the cut-off point might be.

Best regards,

Lin

I was watching this thread with great interest because I was having the same problem!!!

One thing I just discovered is that I made a show with about 10 different objects all moving in different directions. The transition for this effect was very smooth and exactly what I wanted!

Two slides later I did a very simple zoom and the next slide was a very basic pan. They were both jerky and I was very unhappy with how it looked!

I could not figure out what was different between these two slides IN THE SAME SHOW!

It turns out that all the moving objects were fairly small and the slides that were jerky were 1200 x 900.

When I reduced the size of these two pictures to 800 x 600 both the pan and zoom cleaned right up!!!

Mark Wilbur

[Allogagaw]

That almost pins down the issue to resources. Possibly video RAM or not enough video power to crunch all the numbers but the more likely is video RAM. When the smaller files run smoothly and the larger ones don't the common difference is the file size (not dimensions but actual size in bytes). If you could check the difference in the file size between your smaller and larger files it might reveal where the cut-off point might be.

Lin,

I am assume you have to be asking about individual picture files not PTE or EXE files:

Before modifying the pictures were 150-273K

After Modifying the picture file sizes became 50-70K

I forgot to mention that I am running a NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 with 128mb

(Hmmmm... Me thinks I see a connection)

Mark Wilbur

[JPD]

Before modifying the pictures were 150-273K

After Modifying the picture file sizes became 50-70K

Which is important is the size in the memory which is Width x heigth x 4 in Bytes and for calculation the size in pixels of the part of the picture which is in the visual zone, the size of the jpg has no matter.

The calculation are on all pictures which aren't at 0% for opacity and only for the part which is in the visual zone, even there is another picture above. For the part which is out of the visual zone, there are some calculations but very smaller (about 15% on my PC).

Always on my PC, it need about 3.2 ms/Mpx of the size of the pictures which are inside the visual zone and about 4 ms/Mpx for the calculation of the picture in the screen definition.

For the rectangle, there is only calculation of what is in the screen definition even if opacity is at 0%.

If I have two pictures 1280 x 960 inside the visual zone and a screen definition of 1600 x 1200, my PC need :

1280 x 960 x2 x 3.2 ms/Mpx = 7.5 ms +

1600 x 1200 x 2 x 4ms/Mpx = 14.6 ms, total = 22.1 so the frequency is 1000/22.1 = about 45 hz, which is good, this number must be above 25 hz to have smooth effect.

In this exemple, I just have the calculation for a rectangle transition.

1 Mpx = 1024 x 1024 pixels

Note : during the transition, the calculation are on two views and if there are several times the same object, there will be the same number of calculations than the number of object, but it will be only one time in memory.

[Mr B]

I to have a NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 and get jerky transitions from the Forum members shows in PTE5. I understand the need for more processing power but how does this help when producing a show that is played on a lower spec machine? Will I have to produce a show thinking of what the users machine has as a graphics card?

[JPD]

-->

(Mr B @ Jan 1 2007, 11:36 AM) ←

I to have a NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 and get jerky transitions from the Forum members shows in PTE5. I understand the need for more processing power but how does this help when producing a show that is played on a lower spec machine?

Please try this 2 slideshows and tell me if there are jerk :

Test PZR 1280

Fantaisies florales

Thanks

Will I have to produce a show thinking of what the users machine has as a graphics card?

I think so.

[Lin Evans]

-->

QUOTE(Mr B @ Jan 1 2007, 10:36 AM) ←

I to have a NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 and get jerky transitions from the Forum members shows in PTE5. I understand the need for more processing power but how does this help when producing a show that is played on a lower spec machine? Will I have to produce a show thinking of what the users machine has as a graphics card?

As Jean-Pierre says, the answer right now is "yes". In the U.S. there are many high powered computers with powerful graphics cards but in many places in the world there are a number of less powerful computers still being sold and even larger numbers still in use which have less than optimal graphics power.

With the coming of Windows Vista operating system comes the requirement for a high powered graphics environment. In a couple years all new computers will easily run the most complex and video demanding shows, but right now there are a sizeable number of even new computers, especially laptop models, which can't handle heavy video calculations done via the graphics chip.

On the other hand, since you see jerkyness in many of the shows created by forum members, a show which does run smoothly on your own computer will probably run smoothly on the majority of computers because your own graphics engine is challenged by what can be created and run smoothly on more powerful graphics machines.

When I created my Christmas show, Jean-Pierre couldn't see it on his computer. All except one of the people I sent links to in the U.S. could see it fine, but it didn't always play smoothly. One person I sent the link to couldn't see it at all and his business laptop (he works for a major electronics company in the U.S.) is less than six months old, so there are computers being sold in the US right now which can't handle heavy graphics loads.

The best way to be sure everyone can see your show is to pay attention to the points Jean-Pierre has made and be aware that everyone may not have the video power to view your show.

Best regards,

Lin

[Allogagaw]

Please try this 2 slideshows and tell me if there are jerk :

Test PZR 1280

Fantaisies florales

It will be intersting to learn about "Mr B's" result with his FX5200...

Neither slide show had any significant jerking on my FX5200.

"Test PZR 1280" DID have a slight ripple appear about every 2 seconds (during the 1st long set of pans when the screen was rolling from top to bottom). I suspect these were image splices?

This was NOT annoying except to the most critical eye and I did not catch it until I was actually looking for it.

"Fantaisies florales" showed absolutely no jerking at all!!!

BTW: It has incredible animation too!!!

It appears that perhaps moving multiple smaller objects around on the screen is not as much as a resource hog as a PAN or ZOOM. (In my original post I even noted that in the same slideshow my PAN was jerky and the annimation was not)

Mark Wilbur

[Lin Evans]

Lin,

I am assume you have to be asking about individual picture files not PTE or EXE files:

Before modifying the pictures were 150-273K

After Modifying the picture file sizes became 50-70K

I forgot to mention that I am running a NVIDIA GeForce FX5200 with 128mb

(Hmmmm... Me thinks I see a connection)

Mark Wilbur

Hi Mark,

For not exceeding the total RAM on the video card, the jpeg size in bytes is important. For example, if you have a 32 meg video card and you have a show which simultaneously has 30 images on screen and each has a file size of 2 megabytes, then the total RAM requirement would be 64 meg and your have greatly exceeded the capability of the video card.

The above is an unlikely scenario, but I managed to do this some time ago when I created my "puzzle.exe" file with 30 puzzle pieces and a couple other images which totaled over 128 meg! I had 30 puzzle pieces in simultaneous movement and each file consisted of a full screen PNG but only a tiny part of the PNG was not transparent. This small part consisted on the puzzle piece and the rest of the file was transparent. Visually transparent but certainly not RAM transparent - LOL. The reason I made the show in that manner was that having the complete PNG file made it very easy to place the puzzle pieces at the end of the show by simply setting the zoom to zero. Everything fell into place. The show wouldn't play on any but very strong graphics environments.

I modified the show so that each puzzle piece consisted of a PNG file not much larger than a single puzzle piece and the show would play on virtually any PC smoothly. Guess what? The compressed size for the zip file and for the executables were virtually identical. But remember a jpeg file expands to its uncompressed size in memory when played on a computer.

The second part of the issue is even more important as Jean Pierre describes. That concerns the "dimensions" in pixels displayed on the screen at any given time. So if your graphics card is set to display at 1200x960 and the native file size in pixels is 1600x1200 it will take more graphics power than if your graphics card were set to 1024x768 and you played the same 1600x1200 image. In other words the file size in pixel dimensions in the "visual" portion of the screen is important in the calculations or number crunching ability of the card. By changing your own images to a smaller dimension, you both decreased the RAM requirements and the calculation requirements. So either a dfferent graphics display size or a different native file pixel count impact the smoothness.

I hope this explanation isn't too convoluted... LOL

Best regards,

Lin

[Igor]

Thanks, Lin!

I would like to add to Lin's observation that if don't take in attention question of video memory and time of loading, showing of images 1024x768 and 1600x1200 takes exactly same time. For video card it's important screen resolution, not images resolution.

But on modern video cards like Geforce 6800 or Radeon X1600 no difference, because these video cards so powerful that can do everything. Even for 1920x1080 displays.

[Gerdi]

No I could solve the jerking problems by reducing the filesize from 4256X2848 to 2000X1300. There is no jerking anymore.

By the way. Even the administrator´s samplefile (http://www.wnsoft.com/apr/show/PteShow.zip) produced a little jerk at the time, when the framepictures enter the screen from the left...

Gerdi

[JPD]

showing of images 1024x768 and 1600x1200 takes exactly same time

Well, Igor there is something that I don't understand, I have made hundreds tests to find the values I give above, one of these tests is here.

I put 2 slides, the first one in which there is nothing (just a very little file 1 x 1 pixel, and the second one in which there are several times the same picture (to test on my PC I put 100 times the same file, for a more power PC it will be necessary to put more times this file to be abble to count the number of images which are calculated). between the 2 slides there is a rectangle transition of 99 seconds.

I can count the number of images that PTE calculate during these 99 seconds. On my PC, this exemple give 99 images/99 seconds for 1600 x 1200 screen definition and 153 images for 99 seconds with a screen definition of 1152 x 864, and all the others test I did last month say the same thing. With my Radeon 7500, it take more time to calculate the same picture with 1600 x 1200 than for 1152 x 864.

It seems to me, before, when looking a slideshow that it was smoother with hight screen definition, but the test above say the contrary and all the other tests I did have the same result +/- 18 %

time of loading

I did also a test which is on Diapositif which permit to know how many of Ms/s are between the memory and the memory of the graphic card.

As I use bmp files and that there are preloaded at the begining of the test there is only the time between memories.

On my PC, I found 17 Mb/sec (2.4 ghz), one of our members found 24 Mb/s, that mean that if we want to be good on the most part of the PC today we have to calculate the time of loading between memories with a rate between 10 and 12 mb/sec. (+ read from hard disk + calculation for jpg or png).

I am sorry, it's in french, but what is important is the result. The explanations are inside the template, you can translate with Google if you want to use it.

[alrobin]

.................. For video card it's important screen resolution, not images resolution.

.........................

My findings seem to reflect this too. As I've pointed out to a couple of people on the forum who, like me, have been having problems with "twitches" at the start and end of transitions, reducing the monitor resolution seems to help.

I'm using a "middle-age" Radeon 9600 card with 128 Mb of VRAM, and find that when I reduce the monitor resolution from it's native 1680x1050 to 1280x768, the glitches virtually disappear. I say "virtually" because I think I can still detect a slight hesitation - but it could be because I'm expecting it, so seem to see it.

[ronwil]

Could that then be an Al-leluha(sion)? Happy New Year Al.

Ron [uK]

[JPD]

When I read what Al wrote, I understand that I didn't understood what Igor wrote, I agree that the screen definition is important, but I also found that the size of the pictures is important too.

I made in november hundreds tests with different sizes of pictures at different screen definition and I found with a method we call in french "les moindres carrés" an approximative formulas with a little fixed part of time for each picture plus a time depending of the size in pixels of the picture plus a time depending of the size of the picture on the screen. Here is a little part of the results I found

In order to have a simplest rule I search the values without the fixed part, the results where at +/-15% with the first rule they are at +/- 18% with the second one, so it's enough good.

On my PC the values I gave are about 4ms/ Mpx on the screen, 3.2 ms/Mpx for the picture.

Notice that a rectangle with the same size than a picture is quicker than the picture : it's because it has only the time of calculation for the screen, not for the picture itself (of course, it's a rectangle). That mean there is a time of calculation for the picture itself.

The values I found are for my PC, but I think it must be the same for all PC with others values :

a part for the picture, a part for it's image on the screen.

I am sorry to have too much difficulties to well explain what I found.

[bogaertb]

Hi Jean-Pierre,

Lowering the screen resolution seems to help: I lowered from 1280x1024 to 1024x768 and then the demo show ran without any hamperings verything seemed fluid. I also ran the same show on my son's PC (which is more recent and hence a lot more powerful then mine) and there I did not see any issue, even with the high screen resolution settings.

If I make a DVD ISO image and play that the show also runs smoothly, so at least this is a comforting idea that I will still be able to achieve great results with PTEv5 even if it is a little bit jerky on bigger screen resolutions (I think that for using beamers the resolution is best set to 1024x768 as higher resolutions are only possible on realy expensive equipment - I think)

I also ran your test program (very nice 'little' thing) and I achieve 14.96 Mbps on my system (my video card is already an older one and is equipped with 64Mb only).

Best whishes to everybody!

Best regards, Bart

[JPD]

Lowering the screen resolution seems to help

Normally yes, even sometimes it seems to me to have best result with a hight resolution for some slideshows, the tests confirm it's quicker with low resolutions.