Size of PowerPoint Slide
Mary
digital pictures that are very large and I would like to be able to resize
them to fit a slide with no margins. Is this possible? Please reply to
mailto:mjam...@i1.net. Thanks!
echos
depending on your regional settings). I assume, though, that you're asking for
pixels, and that information can be found on the PPT FAQ at
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq Pick up the RnRTools...
Echo
Michael Koerner
"Mary" <mjam...@i1.net> wrote in message
news:0vA_4.11$Jj7.3...@news1.i1.net...
Jeff Harper
with no margins
Austin Myers
Not that simple I'm afraid. One of the greate things about PPT is that it
"sizes" it's output depending upon the display/print device. You run 1024 X
768 on your monitor, the next person uses 800 X 600, and the next, well you
get the idea. It also depends what options you choose when you started the
presentation. IE. Full Screen, 35mm slides, etc..
Take a look at the FAQ, a greate deal of information is freely available.
www.rpdslides.com
Austin Myers
PowerPoint MVP Team
Steve Rindsberg
They have to wade through my prose to get at the info, though. I don't know
as I'd call that "free" exactly. They do get to suffer for their art,
though ... that's something. <g>
Brian Reilly, MVP
Well not exactly (g).
Actually a normal PPT page (the 10" x 7.5" inch size) is an actual
fixed size, that is irrelevant to the the screen resolution. For the
record, if you check our RnR PPTools tool that gives you the Where Am
I dimensions of an object is reported in Points (not pixels)Hence a
full frame dude in PPT 2000 is
Top = 0
left = 0
width = 720
height = 540
Remember the old fact that there are 72 points to an inch, which has
nothing to do with pixels/inch which is the resolution.
Maybe Friday should pick that one up and add it to the FAQ. Oh,
Friday, wake up!
Brian Reilly, PowerPoint MVP
On Sun, 4 Jun 2000 22:10:26 -0700, "Austin Myers" <aus...@netins.net>
wrote:
>Mary,
>
>Not that simple I'm afraid. One of the greate things about PPT is that it
>"sizes" it's output depending upon the display/print device. You run 1024 X
>768 on your monitor, the next person uses 800 X 600, and the next, well you
>get the idea. It also depends what options you choose when you started the
>presentation. IE. Full Screen, 35mm slides, etc..
>
>Take a look at the FAQ, a greate deal of information is freely available.
>www.rpdslides.com
>
Austin Myers
Brian,
OK, I'm going to need this one gone over one more time. Your saying you
would use the same diminsions regardless of destination? IE Screen vs 35mm.
One of the things I'm not certain on is the 72 points per inch. Where does
that number come from? I've seen the number before but don't remember
where.
Austin
Brian Reilly, MVP
no matter what the screen resolution used to project.
I would use a different size for 35 mm but I don't do slides anymore,
in spite of being a friend of Steve (g), but that would clearly be a
different size (810wide x 540 high) in points and a higher resolution
resolution.
72 points to the inch has been around so long it probably dates back
to the Gutenberg Bible or shortly thereafter. It's how one measure
type size (points) and there are always 72 points to an inch.
Am about to do a host of pressies that have to print in U.S. and also
in non-U.S. on A4 printers. Gonna have to experiement with that one.
Brian Reilly, PowerPoint MVP
On Mon, 5 Jun 2000 23:21:56 -0700, "Austin Myers" <aus...@netins.net>
Steve Rindsberg
> to the Gutenberg Bible or shortly thereafter.
Well, the PS Red Book -- the Word According to Warnock -- different sorta
bible, different time frame. Early 1980s.
Steve Rindsberg
> would use the same diminsions regardless of destination? IE Screen vs
35mm.
That would depend on your needs and on the software you use to make the
35mms.
PPT's default On Screen Show size isn't proportional to 35mm slides, so
ideally you'd want to pick the 35mm slide size if 35mms is what you want.
But you might need to use the same show in either format. If you switch
sizes on an existing show, your graphics get stretched or squashed, so
that's a non-starter. A good slide service bureau can take a presentation
in Screen Show format and center the images on 35mms, putting a little black
left and right to fill in the difference. Since black doesn't project,
nobody need be the wiser. In fact, if you're going to be sharing screen
space with video projected shows at the same meeting, this is probably the
best route to take.
>
> One of the things I'm not certain on is the 72 points per inch. Where
does
> that number come from? I've seen the number before but don't remember
> where.
Points are a printer's measure; historically 72_and_change points per inch,
but Adobe redefined them to *exactly* 72 per inch when they came out with
PostScript. Faster to do integer math than floating point, I guess.
Michael Koerner
I was trying my hand as an apprentice typesetter in the early 50's
"Steve Rindsberg" <drop...@someplace.else> wrote in message
news:#3vFYs7z$GA.197@cppssbbsa04...
Austin Myers
Steve,
Uh, OK, but what does that have to do with screen output? I guess that's
where my confusion comes in.
Austin Myers
PowerPoint MVP Team
> >One of the things I'm not certain on is the 72 points per inch. Where
Brian Reilly, MVP
The location of an object on a page is like a piece of real estate. If
you are located in the third grid from the left and the fifth grid
from the top and you are two grids wide by 4 grids high, you could
figure out where to plant the crops. But if you all of a sudden say
that you just bought the small farm next store you just added some
more grids, but the crops didn't move since you already planted them.
Now if you planted some crops there on that new little set of grids
and then sold the property, you would necessarily be able to harvest
that crop since someone else owned it and it prolly didn't move.
Similar idea I see in PPT, if I embed a chart in a normal U.S. pressie
and line it up on the top and left of the page, it is as big as it is.
Now, when I switch to A4 or to 35mm which is wider, it doesn't
necessarily move to the top and left since it has already grown roots.
So, it sort of looks indented on the page instead of flush left where
I first planted it.
Well, it sometimes works that way, with my Excel charts, they don't
move or resize. AutoShapes move their top and left to reflect the 0,0
of the new but they mess with their width and height, so they get
stretchy but disproportionately.
Tough, I think I'm gonna have to play with this puppy on an A4 machine
to make sure I get it right. Wonder where I could get one?
Or to paraphrase this whole discussion like a true farmboy that I am,
"Ya can't get there from here".
Brian Reilly, PowerPoint MVP
On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:02:27 -0700, "Austin Myers" <aus...@netins.net>
wrote:
>
Steve Rindsberg
> where my confusion comes in.
No, I think you're just confused from listening to Brian. Don't feel bad,
happens to the best of us. Even Brian. He goes in to shave in the morning,
talks to himself in the mirror and comes out looking positively dazed.
Actually, I haven't a clue what points and picas would have to do with
screen output. It's all Brian's fault.
Uh. What was the question again?
Steve Rindsberg
didn't. Made for loads of fun when people tried to paste up output made on
two different systems. <g>
--
Steve Rindsberg, PowerPoint MVP
PPT FAQ - http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq
RnR PPTools - http://www.rdpslides.com/pptools
ZAP! for service bureaus - http://www.rdpslides.com/zap
Michael Koerner <m.koern...@home.com> wrote in message
news:#HIdpD9z$GA.258@cppssbbsa04...
Austin Myers
Brian,
See below:
> Austin, Let me try and unconfuse the ol' farmboy (g).
Well now that's going to take more than a quick note. <g>
> The location of an object on a page is like a piece of real estate. If
> you are located in the third grid from the left and the fifth grid
> from the top and you are two grids wide by 4 grids high, you could
> figure out where to plant the crops. But if you all of a sudden say
> that you just bought the small farm next store you just added some
> more grids, but the crops didn't move since you already planted them.
> Now if you planted some crops there on that new little set of grids
> and then sold the property, you would necessarily be able to harvest
> that crop since someone else owned it and it prolly didn't move.
> Similar idea I see in PPT, if I embed a chart in a normal U.S. pressie
> and line it up on the top and left of the page, it is as big as it is.
> Now, when I switch to A4 or to 35mm which is wider, it doesn't
> necessarily move to the top and left since it has already grown roots.
> So, it sort of looks indented on the page instead of flush left where
> I first planted it.
Ya, isn't that what I said. The specific size of an inserted image as
measured in pixels means very little as PPT "sizes" them depending upon
output. If I have an image of say 320 X 200 and drop it into a pres.
running 800 X 600 resolution and another running at 1024 X 768 there is a
big differance in how much of the screen is covered.
To stir the mud a little more, on my system I run 1024 X 768. More
importantly, I run it at 120 DPI which is different than the "standard"
Windows set up of 72 DPI. When I insert a JPEG image at 1024 X 768 it fills
about 2/3 of the screen. (1024 X 768 is the size image created on my Mavica
camera.)
All of this created havoc when I tried to calculate the "best" image size to
fill the entire screen/slide. I suppose it could be calculated using the
120 DPI figure. But then it's a lot easier to simply size images once thier
on the slide.
echos
"Brian Reilly, MVP" wrote:
> Austin, Let me try and unconfuse the ol' farmboy (g).
> The location of an object on a page is like a piece of real estate. If
> you are located in the third grid from the left and the fifth grid
> from the top and you are two grids wide by 4 grids high, you could
> figure out where to plant the crops. But if you all of a sudden say
> that you just bought the small farm next store you just added some
> more grids, but the crops didn't move since you already planted them.
> Now if you planted some crops there on that new little set of grids
> and then sold the property, you would necessarily be able to harvest
> that crop since someone else owned it and it prolly didn't move.
> Similar idea I see in PPT, if I embed a chart in a normal U.S. pressie
> and line it up on the top and left of the page, it is as big as it is.
> Now, when I switch to A4 or to 35mm which is wider, it doesn't
> necessarily move to the top and left since it has already grown roots.
> So, it sort of looks indented on the page instead of flush left where
> I first planted it.
> Well, it sometimes works that way, with my Excel charts, they don't
> move or resize. AutoShapes move their top and left to reflect the 0,0
> of the new but they mess with their width and height, so they get
> stretchy but disproportionately.
>
> Tough, I think I'm gonna have to play with this puppy on an A4 machine
> to make sure I get it right. Wonder where I could get one?
>
> Or to paraphrase this whole discussion like a true farmboy that I am,
> "Ya can't get there from here".
> Brian Reilly, PowerPoint MVP
>
> On Tue, 6 Jun 2000 13:02:27 -0700, "Austin Myers" <aus...@netins.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Steve,
> >
> >Uh, OK, but what does that have to do with screen output? I guess that's
> >where my confusion comes in.
> >
> >Austin Myers
> >PowerPoint MVP Team
> >
> >
> >
Steve Rindsberg
> measured in pixels means very little as PPT "sizes" them depending upon
> output. If I have an image of say 320 X 200 and drop it into a pres.
> running 800 X 600 resolution and another running at 1024 X 768 there is a
> big differance in how much of the screen is covered.
Well no wonder yer confused about all this points 'n inches schtuff.
When you insert images, what happens depends on a couple factors:
- Which version of PPT you have
- Your system's "dpi" (ie, large fonts vs small fonts, 120 vs 96 dpi)
- The size of the image in pixels
- And in some cases the size of the image in inches/whatever IF the image
type supports that info.
There's some info on this in the FAQ (check the DPI related stuff) and a
link to a zip of some test bitmaps that illustrate the points made there.
Some bitmap formats carry DPI and SIZE info, some don't. Some versions of
PPT will try to respect that info if the format supports it (ie, if a TIFF
says it's supposed to be 3" wide, it may come in at that width). Other
bitmap formats don't carry this info, so PPT punts:
It knows the width/height of the image in pixels, it knows your video rez,
so it divides imagepixels/YourVideoDPI to get inches. If inches > your
slide setup size, it scales the image down so that it fits on the page.
> But then it's a lot easier to simply size images once thier
> on the slide.
>
It is. As long as you know that the image rez is reasonable for the size
you'll use it at, it's a LOT easier to Just Do It than to worry over
whatever weird dreams PPT is having about it.