If you are like me, you've got a potful of graphic images you use for Pronto buttons and backgrounds. They are all useless for the 9600. I thought, incorrectly, that all one would have to do is resize them by a factor of 2 in each dimension. Turns out that isn't true. Images do not resize UP directly using Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro. They lose resolution and clarity.

I went to the experts on a Photoshop forum for advice, and learned that you have to resize upwards in 5% increments to have any chance of maintaining sharpness. Obviously that is painful. I also learned that there are plugins and separate software packages that will do the job automatically. Here are some links to the recommended software.

[Link: fixerlabs.com]

[Link: ononesoftware.com]

[Link: mehdiplugins.com]

[Link: imphotography.com]

The latter is freeware and, according to the experts, works equally well with Photoshop and Photoshop Elements.

I don't know if there are any plugins/aids for Paint Shop Pro since nobody has posted a reply on the PSP forum. A couple of the above packages are self-contained (not plugin) and will work with any image, but they tend to be expensive.

I'll try testing the freebies and will post what I learn. It occurs to me that it should be possible to write a macro in Photoshop or Paint Shop Pro that will batch resize a directory full of graphics files with a single command.

Of course if you did what the smart designers do - start with oversize images and then downsize to the dimensions you want and were clever enough to have saved those original designs in psd or psp format - then you can ignore this post altogether. :-))

For those who are interested, PSP8 and higher has a scripting language (Python) that will allow you to work on entire directories.

I tried the freebie ssimage size. Not good enough. I sent a button graphic to each of the other software companies on the list and asked them to show me what their software could do. None of the results were acceptable - at least to me. Sigh . . .

You are trying to make an image larger than what it already is, no software in the world can recreate the data needed to make the image perfectly resized - some may resize with different sharpness settings but thats about as good as your going to get.

Keep this in mind as well...
The TSU9600's screen area is the same size (but turned 90 degrees) as the Pronto NG screens, yet if offers twice the resolution within that same space. As a result, you may find that certain PCF graphics scaled to 100% for use with your XCF may still look quite good in the remote as you benefit from twice the pixel density. My TSU7500 channel logos for instance look quite good in the TSU9600 even after scaling them up by 100% for my XCF. They look very poor in the editor of course, but once downloaded to the remote they retain most of the sharpness they had originally. My DVD cover images were another story however. I had to replace each and every one of those with new images created from the originals. I was really dreading taking that task on, but it ended up only taking me a day to complete.

Lowpro

Hey I am very excited to hear your input about this remote. I also use a DVD changer and will need to redo all of my covers. Will you be using the RS232 capability?

This remote will be a Christmas present from my wife so for now just looking for reviews/user input from you all.

Jerry
I'm using a RC9200 for now. My CCF is loaded here in RC.

What was the size you ended up with for the cover images?

How does the look in the simulator compared to when downloaded?

Dave

Lowpro, what software did you use to increase the pixel density on your logos? Did you have to do the scaling in stages or were you able to do it in one step? What resizing algorithm did you use (if you know it)?

You said "look very poor in the editor . . but retain sharpness." Why do they look any different in the editor than on the device? Doesn't the editor provide a reasonably accurate picture of what the finished product looks like? Seems that way when I view the sample files on my screen.

I went with 160x230 for my DVD cover images. This allows for 8 DVD covers per page while still retaining the firm key labels at the bottom of each page as seen here.

Couple things to keep in mind when looking at the example pic...
The text via the text labels does not show as anti-aliased in the editor, only in the remote. In the remote text looks fantastic. Also, the background panel in the system area, system items, and firm key labels as pictured are not part of the original screenshot. I added them to the screenshot after the fact in Photoshop as to best represent the final result as seen in the remote.


There is no comparison to the look of the graphics in the Simulator versus the remote. In the Simulator the graphics look horrible due to the screen area of the Simulator only being 300x224 as seen on your computer. This results in graphic anamolies rendering the Simulator less than useful for reviewing your graphics work. The only way the Simulator can accurately represent what is seen in the remote (and that's only to a point) is if the screen area of the Simulator is a true 640x480 as seen on your computer monitor. At this size however, a 1600x1200 desktop needs to be used. Any desktop resolution lower than that and the Simulator would not fit on screen.

During the beta test I brought these things up and even provided a pic showing how large the Simulator would need to be to provide a true 640x480 screen area at a 1600x1200 desktop. As you can see in the pic this allows for ones graphics to be represented accurately in the Simulator. As for the large desktop resolution, only at a 1600x1200 desktop can you even fit 4 pages on the screen at 100% zoom while working with the editor. This is my preferred desktop resolution while working with PEP, so I'd be in favor of the Simulator being displayed at the size seen in my example pic. The other item of note regarding the Simulator. Unlike PPENG, the Simulator in PEP does not run as a separate process. This means that while the Simulator is running the editor can't be used. I find this an unwelcome change as there is no way to check over your work via the Simulator making changes/corrections along the way in the editor at the same time. Hopefully we'll see the Simulator running as a separate process at some point via a future editor update. I put the request in anyway, so it's certainly a possibility.

Also, you are only showing them at 50% zoom in the editor.

The pages as seen in my example pic are actually at 100% zoom. Note the screenshot is 1600x1200, my preferred desktop resolution while using the editor.

The other thing I forget to mention is that there are some minor alignment problems with text labels which show in both the editor and remote along with some alignment problems when using multiple text labels for large amounts of text. Take the DVD description shown in my example pic for instance. This text actually consists of two text labels due to the character limit of text labels which is being done away with by the way via the next editor update hopefully. Anyway, if were to download that page to the remote as seen in my example pic there would be a huge gap between the last line of text from the first text label and the first line of text from the second text label. In order to have the DVD description display properly in the remote I have to slightly overlap the last line of text from the first text label with the first text line of the second text label. It's really kind of screwy. Hopefully we'll see things improve in this regard as future firmware updates come down the pike. Again, for purposes of the screenshot I adjusted the positioning of the text labels so that the text shows as it will be seen in the remote.

Thanks Lowpro

I do run 1600x1200 at home but not a work, so I will look at the screen at home instead of during lunch.

Dave

I didn't increase the pixel density of my logos. I simply increased their size by 100% using the "Resample Image->Bicubic Smooth" option in Photoshop. As I said, the images once resized look horrible in the editor. Once downloaded to the TSU9600 however, they are taking up the same amount of space visually as they do on the TSU7500's screen. As a result, they appear much, much sharper than they do in the editor on my computer monitor.


See my edited reply (Post #9) two prior to this one. It answers your questions in this regard.

My Sony DVP-CX985V changers lack RS232 ports unfortunately. My Polk XRt12 XM Reference Tuner does have an RS232 port however, so I may at some point add the serial extender to my setup though I'd only do so if I could take advantage of its other features as well.

Lowpro
What is the icon to the right of the battery

Dave