bryantpb
Thanx, Gilbz, I tried the small folder trick and that sort of worked, but the stretched out "fat" pictures were still fat in the new slideshow as well.
I compared the same slideshow to the old slideshow plugin and there was virtually NO difference. Is there supposed to be yet,
or am I in fact missing something, i.e., settings, controls, or what?
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 6:44 am
SBDJ
In the version you have, the aspect ratio of the pictures are calculated based on the resolution of the output screen. This means that the pictures are sized to fit that resolution. If that resolution does not display correctly on your output screen, then pictures will still appear stretched. If I output for example in 800x600 to a non-widescreen output, the pictures are perfect. If I output at 800x600 to a widescreen output, and the screen stretches it to fit then pictures will also appear stretched.
The later version has sliders that allow you to customise this a bit better, overriding what resolution the aspect ratio is calculated against. I've got a few more changes to make, then I will upload that version.
Also, .Net runtimes are not required, only VC and DirectX runtimes.
Regards,
Scott
The later version has sliders that allow you to customise this a bit better, overriding what resolution the aspect ratio is calculated against. I've got a few more changes to make, then I will upload that version.
Also, .Net runtimes are not required, only VC and DirectX runtimes.
Regards,
Scott
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 7:49 am
bryantpb
SBDJ said :
"In the version you have, the aspect ratio of the pictures are calculated based on the resolution of the output screen. This means that the pictures are sized to fit that resolution. If that resolution does not display correctly on your output screen, then pictures will still appear stretched. If I output for example in 800x600 to a non-widescreen output, the pictures are perfect. If I output at 800x600 to a widescreen output, and the screen stretches it to fit then pictures will also appear stretched. "
Isn't this precisely the same problem with the original plug-in? Please explain, I think I am being dumb here?
Is there a clear way to change the "widescreen or non-widescreen" output, or is that dictated by the TV it is sent to?
"In the version you have, the aspect ratio of the pictures are calculated based on the resolution of the output screen. This means that the pictures are sized to fit that resolution. If that resolution does not display correctly on your output screen, then pictures will still appear stretched. If I output for example in 800x600 to a non-widescreen output, the pictures are perfect. If I output at 800x600 to a widescreen output, and the screen stretches it to fit then pictures will also appear stretched. "
Isn't this precisely the same problem with the original plug-in? Please explain, I think I am being dumb here?
Is there a clear way to change the "widescreen or non-widescreen" output, or is that dictated by the TV it is sent to?
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 2:02 pm
brian_fligg
You have to set your output resolution to match your TV. If you're running a 4x3 TV, set your resolution to like 800x600. If you're running a wide screen (16x9), set your resolution to like 1280x800.
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 2:14 pm
bryantpb
My normal on screen size is 1200 x 800, and my only two choices for output is 800x600 and 1024x728.
My caed is NVidea 7900GT 256mB dedicated, you'd think I'd have more options than this for second monitor, wouldn't you.
Am I missing something else again?
Please advise! :)
Bryant
My caed is NVidea 7900GT 256mB dedicated, you'd think I'd have more options than this for second monitor, wouldn't you.
Am I missing something else again?
Please advise! :)
Bryant
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 4:36 pm
brian_fligg
I might be wrong here, but I think if you went with a x600 GT card (ie 6600, 7600, 8600gt), you might have more resolution options. I think I read somewhere that at 7900gt card isn't necessarily going to be better than a 7600gt card, in fact, worse in some ways. Maybe this is one?
Maybe try updating the driver? I would think you'd have more options as you say.
My main monitor runs at 1440x900 and the output is 1280x800 (I think) on my Nvidia 7600gt.
Maybe try updating the driver? I would think you'd have more options as you say.
My main monitor runs at 1440x900 and the output is 1280x800 (I think) on my Nvidia 7600gt.
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 4:46 pm
bryantpb
okay Thanx.
Now, on my laptop with ATI 300, I am not seeing any controls at all.
Any suggestions. Put the compiler in 3 times, put 9.0c in three times, updated to net framework 3.0.
What do you think is missing?
Now, on my laptop with ATI 300, I am not seeing any controls at all.
Any suggestions. Put the compiler in 3 times, put 9.0c in three times, updated to net framework 3.0.
What do you think is missing?
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 5:36 pm
brian_fligg
All I have with the current download is the rotation speed. If you don't see that, I don't know what to tell ya.
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 6:51 pm
bryantpb
Maybe SBDJ can jump in here, I have NO controls at all on the laptop?
geposted Thu 21 Feb 08 @ 11:53 pm
SBDJ
The only dependancies my plugin has are D3DX9_36.DLL and MSVCR80.DLL. You can use this handy utility (http://www.dependencywalker.com/depends22_x86.zip) to check the status of all the dependancies. Don't worry about DWMAPI.DLL, it seems to be a Vista-only requirement.
On my machine Dependancy Walker reports D3DX9_36.DLL as v9.19.949.2111 and MSVCR80.DLL is reported as v8.0.50727.1378.
Regards,
Scott
On my machine Dependancy Walker reports D3DX9_36.DLL as v9.19.949.2111 and MSVCR80.DLL is reported as v8.0.50727.1378.
Regards,
Scott
geposted Fri 22 Feb 08 @ 4:30 am
bryantpb
What is mcvr80?
geposted Sun 24 Feb 08 @ 5:18 pm
djcel
bryantpb wrote :
What is mcvr80?
It's a Windows library for C++ softwares
geposted Sun 24 Feb 08 @ 7:09 pm
bryantpb
On another note: Anyone, How do you get that "Bryant wrote" in quotes. never could seem to be able to do that?
geposted Mon 25 Feb 08 @ 5:58 pm
spinnaJ
bryantpb wrote :
On another note: Anyone, How do you get that "Bryant wrote" in quotes. never could seem to be able to do that?
U mean like this^^^^
U could see this thread as an example;)
Regards.
geposted Tue 26 Feb 08 @ 2:35 am
li125
what about a control to mantain the original aspect ratio?
Let's say my output resolution is 800x600 (4/3) but I have a 16/9 picture i.e. 1600x900 pixels. I don't want to have this picture resized to 4/3 output! Better would be to mantain the 16/9 aspect ratio and resize it to 800x450 and leaving to black borders on top and bottom.
Also small images like 400x300, I prefer to have them in original size centered on the screen instead of resizing them to 800x600 and loosing quality.
Let's say my output resolution is 800x600 (4/3) but I have a 16/9 picture i.e. 1600x900 pixels. I don't want to have this picture resized to 4/3 output! Better would be to mantain the 16/9 aspect ratio and resize it to 800x450 and leaving to black borders on top and bottom.
Also small images like 400x300, I prefer to have them in original size centered on the screen instead of resizing them to 800x600 and loosing quality.
geposted Tue 26 Feb 08 @ 4:50 pm
SBDJ
The upsizing I can easily make switchable :)
The point about the aspect ratio I don't really understand - thats the whole point of this plugin, to maintain the aspect ratio. If your screen resolution is 800x600, and you try and display an image that is 1600x900 it will scale it down to 800x450 since that is the biggest correct aspect size that can be displayed on an 800x600 screen. Because the image is 450 high, it will display black bars top and bottom.
In fact, I've just tested it with exactly the scenario you describe, and that's exactly what it does?
I'm regularly using it now to display pictures that are not 4:3 and it keeps them in aspect according to the screen resolution set. The newer version even allows you to override the assumed screen resolution.
Regards,
Scott
The point about the aspect ratio I don't really understand - thats the whole point of this plugin, to maintain the aspect ratio. If your screen resolution is 800x600, and you try and display an image that is 1600x900 it will scale it down to 800x450 since that is the biggest correct aspect size that can be displayed on an 800x600 screen. Because the image is 450 high, it will display black bars top and bottom.
In fact, I've just tested it with exactly the scenario you describe, and that's exactly what it does?
I'm regularly using it now to display pictures that are not 4:3 and it keeps them in aspect according to the screen resolution set. The newer version even allows you to override the assumed screen resolution.
Regards,
Scott
geposted Tue 26 Feb 08 @ 7:05 pm
li125
Right, I was looking at the standard lsideshow Effect, now I installes the SBDJ SlideShow and indeed I have no more aspect ratio problems.
Now just the original size or upscale (mantain aspect ratio) selection would be a nice extra.
Now just the original size or upscale (mantain aspect ratio) selection would be a nice extra.
geposted Wed 27 Feb 08 @ 4:24 am
SBDJ
Added to the latest version. I'm still trying to narrow down a small problem, I've just sent the latest beta to Kym for testing with a whole bunch of logging...
Regards,
Scott
Regards,
Scott
geposted Wed 27 Feb 08 @ 7:11 am
Gilbz
Whats the latest Scott
Been away for 2 weeks ;-)
Been away for 2 weeks ;-)
geposted Wed 12 Mar 08 @ 9:24 am
SBDJ
It's been a manic couple of weeks so I haven't had much time, but I'm still doing some testing - I'm writing a non-threaded version for Kym to test. He's the only person that has reported any sort of crash to me, so I would appreciate anyone else having a crash to let me know on this thread. Despite trying my hardest, I have as yet been unable to crash it myself - I use it 3 nights a week for about 5 hours a night (mixed with videos of course).
For those who are having issues with not seeing the controls, I built a new laptop yesterday on Windows XP. On this laptop I placed all the latest windows updates, update to the very latest DirectX 9 using dxwebsetup.exe and installed the latest MS VC++ runtime libraries. I was at this point able to see all controls and the plugin worked. If you can't see the controls, please make sure your system is up-to-date.
What I will probably do is release the updated version with the extra functionality in threaded and non-threaded versions, so those people without issues can benefit, and those with can do futher testing - it is labelled as a beta plugin after all!
Regards,
Scott
For those who are having issues with not seeing the controls, I built a new laptop yesterday on Windows XP. On this laptop I placed all the latest windows updates, update to the very latest DirectX 9 using dxwebsetup.exe and installed the latest MS VC++ runtime libraries. I was at this point able to see all controls and the plugin worked. If you can't see the controls, please make sure your system is up-to-date.
What I will probably do is release the updated version with the extra functionality in threaded and non-threaded versions, so those people without issues can benefit, and those with can do futher testing - it is labelled as a beta plugin after all!
Regards,
Scott
geposted Wed 12 Mar 08 @ 9:54 am
