I have 2 questions about powerpoint 2003.

[Kickback]

I've been using powerpoint for a number of years now so I don't
consider myself a beginner user. I was playing around with the
program a few days ago, making a slideshow of pictures, for my
girlfriend. I decided to try something different this time, to
reduce the file size of the slideshow. Normally, I create a slide
for each picture, so when I have to go back later and change the
size, or edit the picture, I can access it quite easily. But this
time, I decided to try something different. This time, rather than
place individual pictures on each slide, I decided to place them all
on 1 slide. I also used the "Fade in" for the entrance of each
picture, and the "Fade Out" for each picture. Fine and dandy so far,
but then I noticed that stacking all the pictures on top of one
another, MAY or MAY NOT be a good idea. My dilema is, how would i be
able to get to a picture that's at the bottom of the stack, in case i
needed to edit it WITHOUT moving it from the location that it's at?

Since my above question does concern reducing file size, I normally
use JPG's for my pictures. What would be the best way to conserve
file size when adding pictures? I noticed PNG's are used quite a bit
in slideshows, but I'm not sure if they really save any more space
than a jpg file would. Anyone's help on these matters would be
appreciated. Thank you...)

 

[Bill Dilworth]

Only two, you are in good shape.

The easiest way to un-stack the images would be to export the PPt to a HTML
which would create all the images again in a folder. Then you can se a bulk
image inserter (Like IIW, http://skp.mvps.org/iiw.htm) to reinsert the
images on individual slides.

You can use a little known, but sometimes useful tool hidden within
PowerPoint called the Select Multiple object tool. You will need to look
for it under the Drawing section of the Customize menu dialogs. It will
show you the items on the slide and allow you to select items by name from a
list, rather than having to uncover them. The bad part of this tool is that
it does not show you the object, it just selects it for you.

There is also the layering tool within PPTools, which allows for additional
control over visually obscured or hidden objects.
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptools/starterset/FAQ00003.htm


The reason I mentioned the first thing first, is that a new slide takes up
almost no space in the PPT file, it is the images that chew through the
megabytes. You are better off doing what you were doing in creating
separate slides for the images, where any animations do not need to overlap.
A file with 1 blank slide is about 7k in size. A blank presentation with
1000 slides is still less then 700k.

While the number of slides may not seriously effect the size of a
presentation, there are other factors that will. Fast saves is one problem
area, don't have it on. Images that contain too much detail are another.
PowerPoint stores the image that you give it even if you can not display the
detail that it contains. For instance, my digital camera takes a 5
megapixel picture. If I insert the resulting 500-700kb JPG picture into
PowerPoint it keeps it. Nine out of every 10 pixels will not be displayed
because the projector/monitor will only accept a 1024x768 image. Therefore
I can cut the file size to about 10% of the original and save space in the
end PPT file. There are many tools to help with this process. Check:
**Why are my PowerPoint files so big? What can I do about it?
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq/FAQ00062.htm


Now, the difference between JPG, PNG, and BMP image files files. A BMP file
stores each pixels exact color as an individual number, so if the whole top
line of the 1024x768 image is black (for instance), the BMP file will store
1024 zeros to denote the first of 768 lines. This is straightforward and
hugely wasteful. The PNG file comes along and allows a certain amount of
compression by allowing a run of the same value to be stored more
efficiently. For example the top line of the all black image would be 1024
(the number of times to repeat) x 0 (the color value of the pixel). Much
more compact. The JPG is a bit more complicated. It evaluate the images
colors and determines what colors are close enough to be grouped together.
As an example, this could mean that a single grey pixel in the middle of a
black area may be simply eliminated to allow further compression of the
image.

Bottom line
BMP - Large Size, no compression, no image quality loss
PNG - Smaller size, compression, no quality loss in processing compression
JPG - Even smaller size, compression, possible image quality loss to obtain
compression.

PNG's are favored because the image will not loose any quality, but for 90%
of the uses of PowerPoint, JPG files will do every bit as well and save a
bit of space.

Way, way more than you probably wanted to know. But now you can amaze
friends at parties by explaining the difference in image file types.


--
Bill Dilworth
A proud member of the Microsoft PPT MVP Team
Users helping fellow users.
http://billdilworth.mvps.org
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_
yahoo2@ Please read the PowerPoint
yahoo. FAQ pages. They answer most
com of our questions.
www.pptfaq.com
..
..

 

[Kickback]

Thank you very much for the information you provided, Bill. I guess I
was on the right track but didn't know additional slides don't weigh
down the over-all finished product. That it's what you put on those
slides that will dictate the final outcome. Thanks again...;o)

 

[Steve Rindsberg]

I've been using powerpoint for a number of years now so I don't
consider myself a beginner user. I was playing around with the
program a few days ago, making a slideshow of pictures, for my
girlfriend. I decided to try something different this time, to
reduce the file size of the slideshow. Normally, I create a slide
for each picture, so when I have to go back later and change the
size, or edit the picture, I can access it quite easily. But this
time, I decided to try something different. This time, rather than
place individual pictures on each slide, I decided to place them all
on 1 slide. I also used the "Fade in" for the entrance of each
picture, and the "Fade Out" for each picture. Fine and dandy so far,
but then I noticed that stacking all the pictures on top of one
another, MAY or MAY NOT be a good idea. My dilema is, how would i be
able to get to a picture that's at the bottom of the stack, in case i
needed to edit it WITHOUT moving it from the location that it's at?

There are a couple ways around the problem, but the easiest is not to cause
yourself the problem in the first place.

The amount of file size you save by putting all the images on the same slide is
minimal. Try creating a presentation with one blank slide in it. Save it.
Noe dupe the blank slide a bunch of times in slide sorter; make say 100
slides. Save again to a new name. Look at the size difference. Is saving
that worth the hassle? Nah.

If you don't agree, then click off the slide someplace then press TAB
repeatedly to select one shape at a time.

If that's not quite help enough, grab the free demo of our PPT2HTML add-in at
http://ppt2html.pptools.com The demo includes an Accessibility Assistant that
lets you select, rename, move, etc. any shape on the slide. Even if they're
all stacked atop one another, there's a nudge command that shoves the shape a
bit to the right then shoves it back again when you're done with it.

Since my above question does concern reducing file size, I normally
use JPG's for my pictures. What would be the best way to conserve
file size when adding pictures?

JPGS. But maybe smaller ones? 1024 x 768 for full screen shows is usually
plenty.

 

[Steve Rindsberg]

There is also the layering tool within PPTools, which allows for additional

control over visually obscured or hidden objects.
http://www.rdpslides.com/pptools/starterset/FAQ00003.htm

An FYI, at the moment that one's only included in the StarterSet Plus ($)
upgrade. The same thing (well, really a better one) is free in the PPT2HTML
demo.