Print out listng of show contents

[happymvd Profile Private message]

I would love to be able to print out a list of those files included in a show, in the order in which they are included, and with the time each file is displayed for.
This would certainly help me controlling the contents of those larger projects.

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I would love to be able to print out a list of those files included in a show, in the order in which they are included, and with the time each file is displayed for.
This would certainly help me controlling the contents of those larger projects.

I've asked for something similar in the past. BUT, you'll also need to know what fonts on what captions on what slide were used. If you archive your PSH file along with your MNU files along with your image files and one day open the show on a new computer you MAY have a problem with some of your captions in the main show or your menuing. That's because you may not have the same fonts installed on the new machine. Once you open the PSH file (i.e., the show) w/o checking to ensure you have all the fonts used in the original show, Proshow substitutes a font for you ... and it is NOT in the same family or same type ... its probably a form of Arial. After that, the PSH and/or MNU files are updated with the "NEW" font information ... and YOU are .... S. O. L. !!! There's no documentation capability w/in PSP/PSG. You have to manually go through the PSH and MNU files looking for the information you want/need.

The list of images used and on what slide is important, I think, for documentation purposes (which can support a variety of purposes). Also, it helps identify duplicate images (or whether an image has been used more than once). Also, this should include menus as well as the PSH files.

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

When it comes to fonts, you can do what many here do, which is to include a copy of the font file within the folder that contains all the other show files. Granted, in the scenario Dale describes, you'll still get that business of font substitution, but you'll have the correct font right at hand to install on the new machine.

I haven't done this, but it's an interim solution (involving tedious work): copy the .psh file and then edit in Word or whatever text editor you use, deleting the information that's of no use and keeping what is.

Barbara

[happymvd Profile Private message]

Hi Barbara
Thanks for the input. I looked at one of my .psh files - wow - not the simplest thing.
I think I will try and document shows as I go along and wait until it is built it (if ever)

[gpsmikey Profile Private message]

It should actually be fairly easy to do with some scripting -- if you grab all lines in the
.psh file that contain the following strings, it should pick up a most? of the files used
"lfFaceName=", "file=" and "image=" look like they would get most of the stuff from a
quick look in the file (lfFaceName= is the font name, "file=" seems to cover the sound
files and image= looks like it picks up the image files. I'm sure there are others, but
most of the stuff in the .psh file has to do with timing, keyframes, colors etc that
you really don't need if you want a list of the files and fonts used. Maybe I'll get a
chance to experiment with this some day - easy in Unix with grep etc, but have to
play with the windows side.

mikey

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

With a bit more tedium, it could be "hand-done" in MS Word. Using the "Find" command, the names of picture, sound, and font files could be altered in some way--say, boldface them--and then we could go back through the file and delete all the lines in between those that contain boldfacing.

Mikey, if you were to come up with a simple function to pull out the important stuff, that would be miles better than working in Word. I used to do database programming, which is like writing in plain English, so any true computer language sails right on over my head.

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I've done it with a macro ... takes the tedium out of it. Once the basic part of it's done, the rest is easy!
I run the macro for the item I seek and let the macro do the rest. I have it copy the found info to a 2nd document.

Still a pain tho.

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Dale, your method may be a pain, but it sure sounds a lot easier than what I came up with.

Barbara

[Bighousedaddy Profile Private messageWebsite]

I don't know if this will help, but when I build buttons for a website, I use print screen to capture what font and settings I used so latter If at a later time I can add more buttons. Knowing just what I did is easy cause I refer to my screen shot.

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Another thing that helps, at least when it comes to fonts, is something I'm now doing as per another member's suggestion: include the font file(s) with the rest of the files for a show. (Was it Debbie Green? I think so.)

Ken, your screenshot idea is excellent. It can also be brought into an image editor where labels can be placed on various elements that tell which files were used for background, buttons, etc.

Barbara

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

I came up with a macro for Word that worked rather nicely, and I posted it here:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7952

In the meantime, though, someone else is working on coming up with a better way. If it happens, we'll make sure it gets posted right here.

How about joining the fray, Dale? Care to share the steps in your own solution? Not to put you on the spot, or anything...

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

Just got back from a 12 mile or more hike (round trip) with an elevation change of close to 3000 feet. Sore... need a beer!

The macro did was in Wordperfect. It's about as basic as you can get. I tell it what to search for and when the search fails it breaks out of it. NOT ELEGANT. Haven't had time to put the subroutines in it so that I don't have to directly edit the macro each time. Sorry ... I am NOT a M$ lover (I use their products when I have to). As far as I'm concerned, Word sucks. I wrote a book in Wordperfect ... and tried in Word. It was MUCH easier to do chapters in WP vs MSW ... just about everything in Word is WEAK. It's very usable and flexible ... just not usable enough or flexible enough if you do ANYTHING beyond a simple document. After that, it becomes man-hour intensive. Well, that's my rant for the day!

Sorry I didn't have anything more constructive to add. Maybe someone could come up with a VBA macro (yes, WP runs VBA ... as does Word).

Dale

PS Off to take a shower, pop an aspirin, and quaff a brewski!

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

My goodness, Dale, but you certainly do dislike Word! Are you sure it isn't more a matter of what you're used to? I do all my writing in Word and have no trouble at all doing chapters, headers, footers, indexes, TOC's, etc., but then I've been using Word since the day I started using Windows...however long ago that might have been. No one really knows.

Barbara

[im42n8 Profile Private messageWebsite]

I had to convert a WordPerfect document to Word once (it was a complicated document that included chapters ... other WP documents that fit into a master document). I was frustrated with Words' limitations (BTW, I have technical basis for why Word sucks ... it's not based soley on what I'm used to ... I used to run a computer support organization and I tested many items of software extensively -- gads, that was so long ago!) and so, a Word "Expert" tried to help me (he'd been using it for many years). Heck, I was doing things in Word he didn't know you could do ... in short, he couldn't help me. Turns out, I knew more about Word than he did and I didn't even use Word all that much. No Barbara, I'm very HIGHLY proficient in Word. I can do a lot in it if I have to (that includes TOC, concordance, chapters, styles, etc). I don't like how it locks me into the MS way of doing it. WP is much MUCH more flexible.

While you can do a lot in Word ... once you start trying to get beyond a simple document, the amount of work (relative to WP) goes WAY UP. Word has a flexible engine but it's still a PITA to work with in anything but a simple document ... the amount of effort just goes up alot then. As long as you stay within the simple (and often, imo, crude) limitations, Word will work "fine." Try to do something more complicated (and correct) and Word tries to protect you from yourself ... and buttonholes you back into it's limitations. I use it ... I hate it (I put up with it).

Dale

[BarbaraC Profile Private messageWebsite]

Hmm, must be that I've just never tried to do anything more than word processing with it. As a matter of fact, I've stripped it down to nearly bare bones because I don't use all the extras in it. I hardly ever even use tables, and when it comes to adding graphics, I just don't have a need for them. I do happen to love macros, though. They save me huge amounts of time. Long ago and far away, I used a program called WordStar. Now there was software written lean and mean and specifically for writers.

Barbara