Jump to content
WnSoft Forums

jt49

Members
  • Content count

    751
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

About jt49

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    M√ľnchen

Recent Profile Visitors

2,034 profile views
  1. jt49

    Trying Fonts

    It would be fine to see this feature in the Online Help
  2. IMO this is a good suggestion
  3. Presently we have a so-called natural blur for images, where the borders of the images become soft and partially transparent. This works well in many cases. Sometimes, in particular when working with images that precisely fill the screen, it would be fine to have a blur option that would work like Photoshop, with sharp borders, and without transparency. In cases where the image has a colored border (PTE Property in O&A), this border should remain as it is while blurring the image.
  4. I would regard this as an implementation specific question. The present situation, where you cannot directly link two clips on the same track to the same slide in the timeline isn't perfect, as well. The reason: You can first draw a clip to some other track, link it, and draw it then to the place where you want to see it, with the known consequences (crossfade does not work, and an error indication in the project options) both of which which I do mind. So you force us to apply an odd workaround. BTW: I do not regard crossfades within the same track as a good solution, as you do not have a good control. I prefer crossfades using two tracks and the envelope. In the typical situation where you link several (normally very short) clips to the same slide you will not have any crossfades.
  5. I am glad to read this! Sometimes I make heavy use of this feature (see below), and (so far) I have not noticed any problem.
  6. As you see in my posted image above, I already make use of the feature of linking several images on the same track to the same slide, although PTE indicates errors in the Project Options. I would be glad if PTE wouldn't show these errors any longer, and if it were possible to do this kind of linking also in the Timeline.
  7. I do not agree. You say that clips (not explicitly linked) that follow a linked clip were linked, as well. This is not really true. The effect that we see is only a side effect, as the position of this kind of clips is described via an offset relative to the preceding one. If you move such a clip (not explicitly linked) to some other track it looses its implicit link, and it may become linked (only implicitly) to some other slide. This is perhaps not what we want to see. Only a clip that has been explicitly linked to a particular slide remains linked to this slide, even if you move it across the tracks. Furthermore: Think of a clip that is explicitly linked to some slide. Now move it to some other track that already has some other clip linked to the same slide. Now you will see two clips on the same track, and they will both have an explicit link to the same slide. Things will work as you will expect it, and the world will seem to be OK. But there will be an indication of an error, but you will only see it in the Project Options. Question: Does this really make sense? It is an error that isn't really one! My suggestion: Make it legal, linking 2 or more clips that are on the same track to the same slide The attached picture shows a typical situation where I prefer to link several clips on the same track to the same slide:
  8. I would have liked to see a statement by WnSoft
  9. jt49

    Improved video output

    I know about all your arguments. But here we are talking about video editing and nothing else. Think of a new customer. He will not know that much on animation in 3D. But he might see that some AV tools offer "video editing", and this might be an argument. The competition offers video editing at frame level, and it might be good for PTE it it would offer something of that kind, as well.
  10. jt49

    Improved video output

    If we look at the competition like m.objects or AquaSoft Stages we see that they (to some extend) are ahead of PTE. They offer at least a few tools for video editing, and it may also be regarded as an advantage that they work with multiple image and video tracks (instead of a single track of containers (slides)). I think that all programs for AV or slide shows cannot compare to video editors like Edius or Premiere Pro. Nevertheles it would be fine if PTE would improve its video editing capabilities, as far as possible.
  11. jt49

    4K video problem

    This is what XMedia Recode offers (and a few more )
  12. This is not a question of nannying, but of consistency. We don't need configuration management for our projects, but a minimum of support for consistency would be fine. Do you think that the developers of MS Office, LibreOffice, Foxit-Software, Photoshop, and others are all idiots who like it to nanny their users?
  13. jt49

    Remember Settings

    I don't think that "Remember Settings" would be a good solution. A button for saving parameters (including fonts for text objects) would be a better solution.
  14. jt49

    4K video problem

    Hi Denis, The frame rates that you mention are those which are presently used by PTE. Nobody wants them to be cancelled. My request is just to add options for a few additional ones
  15. A warning would be better than having nothing. Nevertheless the pitfall would remain closing and storing the two instances in the wrong order. IMO there isn't any need to open exactly the same project file twice. A user who wants to to work with two instances this should be forced to open the second instance by saving the original project a second time using a different name.
×