Size Matters...

All of a sudden my Elements 10 display is too large for my screen and since I can't see the bottom right corner, I can't resize. My tools are now in single file when they used to be in a double row. How do I fix this?

Did you try clicking on the Green Maximize button?

Similar Messages

Detector size matters, right?

This may be a dumb question, but here goes. I assume that detector size matters, right?
For example, I have an APS-C camera (Canon 450D). Presumably, if I post a lens profile for a 35mm full-frame lens (e.g. Canon EF 50mm /1.8 II) it is not appropriate to apply this profile to a 35mm full-frame camera such as the Canon EOS-1D Mark IV? It seems this must be so since my APS-C sensor can't detect what's going on at the edge of a 35mm full-frame.
But I'm not so sure about the other way around. If I apply a corrections from a lens profile that was generated on a full-frame detector to images that I took with the same lens on an APS-C detector, is the software smart enough to only use the middle part of the full-frame field? Or am I get "corrections" for distortions that are outside of the APS-C field?

Thanks Simon!
Is there any process for filtering out lens profiles by detector size?
For example, if I upload a profile for a Canon EF lens using an APS-C camera body, how does someone with a full-frame body avoid using this profile?
Do I only have access to profiles made on the same detector? or same camera body (seems too restrictive so I imagine not)?

Does buffer cache size matters during imp process ?

Hi,
sorry for maybe naive question but I cant imagine why do Oracle need buffer cache (larger = better ) during inserts only (imp process with no index creation) .
As far as I know insert is done via pga area (direct insert) .
Please clarify for me .
DB is 10.2.0.3 if that matters :).
Regards.
Greg

Surprising result: I tried closing the db handles with DB_NOSYNC and performance
got worse. Using a 32 Meg cache, it took about twice as long to run my test:
15800 seconds using DB->close(DB_NOSYNC) vs 8200 seconds using DB->close(0).
Here is some data from db_stat -m when using DB_NOSYNC:
40MB 1KB 900B Total cache size
1 Number of caches
1 Maximum number of caches
40MB 8KB Pool individual cache size
0 Maximum memory-mapped file size
0 Maximum open file descriptors
0 Maximum sequential buffer writes
0 Sleep after writing maximum sequential buffers
0 Requested pages mapped into the process' address space
26M Requested pages found in the cache (70%)
10M Requested pages not found in the cache (10811882)
44864 Pages created in the cache
10M Pages read into the cache (10798480)
7380761 Pages written from the cache to the backing file
3452500 Clean pages forced from the cache
7380761 Dirty pages forced from the cache
0 Dirty pages written by trickle-sync thread
10012 Current total page count
5001 Current clean page count
5011 Current dirty page count
4099 Number of hash buckets used for page location
47M Total number of times hash chains searched for a page (47428268)
13 The longest hash chain searched for a page
118M Total number of hash chain entries checked for page (118169805)
It looks like not flushing the cache regularly is forcing a lot more
dirty pages (and fewer clean pages) from the cache. Forcing a
dirty page out is slower than forcing a clean page out, of course.
Is this result reasonable?
I suppose I could try to sync less often than I have been, but more often
than never to see if that makes any difference.
When I close or sync one db handle, I assume it flushes only that portion
of the dbenv's cache, not the entire cache, right? Is there an API I can
call that would sync the entire dbenv cache (besides closing the dbenv)?
Are there any other suggestions?
Thanks,
Eric

SOS.Please help ASAP . Size matters

I have a mpeg 4 file. ( 22mb ). I need to add two effects on it, Warp Stabilizer and Snow. After I render it, The file size goes to 1.2GB when I export to quicktime and the audio is out of sink. How can I fix the file size to not go from 22MB to 1.2 GB. The file is 1920X1088. I don't care about audio much as I can overlap it but what can I do to take care of the size and not increase exponentially without losing quality. The file duration is about 50 seconds.

Rick Gerard wrote:
PLEASE study up on rendering. You can't be any good at all at producing video if you don't understand rendering things like delivery and production formats.
Rick is right. This is vitally important, basic, knowledge.
FAQ: Why is my output file huge, and why doesn't it playback smoothly?
The under-the-hood reason for your large file size is that AE's output has absolutely nothing to do with the videos you place in your composition. AE works with completely uncompressed frames. Thus, your render is going to be based on that.

Posting slideshow to video.google--size matters

I posted earlier about compressing a wmv file I had created to email and decided just to post it to video.google.
So I posted a slideshow to video.google but no matter what I do, I can't make it "full screen." See here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=874330041612533639&q=Navy+homecoming
I'm not sure what is needed so here are the particulars: Windows XP, PSE5.0, and Organizer. I created all images as 800x600 at 72 dpi, layering the photos onto black pages. I had a couple scans and zooms. Again, the base "page" was 800x600 and I scanned and zoomed within that.
I output it as a wmv file at 640x480 and then uploaded it to video.google. And I don't get full screen
Has anyone had any experience with video.google and know what I'm doing wrong?

Hi Barb,
I was a little rushed when I wrote my first reply, I had to go to the
dentist. I'm back from the appointment and did a little more research on
Google Video.
It looks like things are a bit more complicated. Like YouTube and other
video services, GoogleVideo re-encodes the uploaded videos. When you play
back on the web in a browser, you're seeing a flash movie. In addition, you
can download it, and that seems to give you a mp4 for ipods or gvp/gvi
(custom avi format for use with the google player) for computer viewing.
The issue is the re-encoding. I don't know what Google is doing with the
video. At the very least, they are converting to different formats and
codec than the original (flash, mp4, and gvi). They also appear to be
resizing the video to a standard frame size. I didn't try the Google Player
download, but the embeded source for the web page seems to say that the
flash movie is 400x326. So, it doesn't look like John will be able to
benefit from a higher resolution wmv as far as GoogleVideo is concerned. In
fact, it could even make it look worse depending on how the resizing is
accomplished. A higher resolution wmv will certainly look better on a
computer. And, the resolution he has will be fine for viewing on a standard
TV.
I don't upload to GoogleVideo so I'm not familiar with the process or the
requirements.
John's choices for resolution are very reasonable if his main intent is for
viewing on a conventional TV. (NTSC resolution is 720x480 pixels but the
pixel aspect ratio is 0.9 -- this is equivalent to 640x480 square pixels)
In general, you'll want to resize the images to close to your intended
resolution before you make the slideshow with the exception of frames that
will be panned and zoomed which will need to be larger. Resizing in
Elements or Photoshop is generally better than what you would get scaling in
PE 3, for example, and using full sized 6mb images, for example, can result
in very long render times and may cause other problems if processed in a
video editor such as PE 3.

SIZE MATTERS! HOW TO REDUCE PROJECT SIZE

Hey guys,
my FCP project is pretty big. About 122 megs. I've separated it into 5 projects now, however, its still at about 100 megs. How can I reduce size of the project?
X

Have a look at these threads:
what makes project files grow?
Biggest project file you've had?

Size matters. How can I tell the length of an edited clip?

I knew the length of my clip when I launched it in to the Timeline, but, now that I have cut out all the bits I don't want, is there an easy way to determine the new, shorter duration of my clip?
I tried selecting the parts I wanted to time in aggregate, (perhaps one person speaking, for example ) but my right click revealed only the time of the severed portion of the clip beneath my cursor.
I can write down the beginning time of the clip, deduct that from the time shown at the end of the clip, and arrive at a time for that specific segment that way, but ii seems laborious. Also I have to use a wooden thing called a pencil.
Thank you
Allosaurus

David........
That is wonderful. Thank you for the prompt reply. I tried it immediately and, of course, it works beautifully. Thank you again.
Allosaurus

Projector and dir file size grow 7X unexpectedly - dcr remains the same.

I’m updating a Shockwave project that is also available
for download (so size matters and I’ve got a dcr and exe of
the same project). Last year the file sizes were as follows: dir =
933kb, dcr = 203kb, exe = 4,857kb … all reasonable. I started
with last year’s file, eliminated numerous redundant scripts
and cast members (including an unused font), combined the
functionality of scripts that were similar, streamlined the
operation of other scripts, updated some internal data, replaced
the one and only bmp with a new one for this year (same size),
saved and compacted … and for all my effort to clean up this
year’s version I get the following: dir = 33.9Mb, dcr =
224kb, exe = 37.5Mb The xtras are an obvious suspect but I went
down the list and they’re the same as last year, the only
outside xtra being POM (which hasn’t changed since 2006) I
recompiled last year’s project and the sizes were still
reasonable, so Director isn’t broke. Anyone know what's up?
PS: I made a dummy copy of this year's movie, elminated
everything (all sprites, all cast members, all xtras), save and
compact, and the dir file is still 33Mb?!?!?
PPS: Well, I copied everything into a fresh document, spent
about an hour making sure scripts not attached to sprites didn't
get left behind, re-attached the required xtras, and now I'm back
down to a 4.4Mb projector but I'm not sure why.

Thanks Mike. The odd thing is the results above were after a
“save and compact” (as a matter of habit I always
compact). Even with everything stripped out of the file I
couldn’t get Director to jettison whatever garbage had gotten
lodged in. On the plus side, moving the cast and score to a fresh
document not only cured the problem but also allowed me to
eliminate some legacy xtras that were no longer being used (this
project has been updated yearly since 2002).
PS: Flash's memory and file size audit report is really nice
for trouble shooting this kind of problem, it would be nice if
Director gets the same feature.

Best size for previews

What is the best size for standard previews when working with a 27 inch iMac? screen size 2560 by 1440
Also would you go high quality preview or just low.
Stepping back a little - here's my work flow
Import
Convert to DNG fast load previews
render embedded and Sidecar
applying a preset to auto set lens corrections
assessing in library
view / select - 1st run thru check images through larger thumbnails
weed out - full screen / 100%zoomed in images
Develop modeThis assessing is where things fall down, often the rendering takes 4-8 seconds, sometimes starting with a totally pixellated image.
files and LR data are stored on firewire 800 RAID 5 external hard drive
Lightroom 2 Catalog-2-2 Previews.lrdata
Lightroom 2 Catalog-2-2.lrcat
Lightroom 2 Catalog-2-2.lrcat-journal
Lightroom 2 Catalog-2-2.lrcat.lock
images
cache is on iMac set at 50 Gb
So - any thoughts on the below would be appreciated
size for standard previews
render - embed and sidecar or standard
Thanks
hamishNIVENPhotography

Rob, you read the Help??
For archived files 1:1 is completely unnecessary and you should have noticed, I have the space.
Have you noticed that if you zoom in on an archived image with a standard preview a 1:1 is automatically generated, too easy!
If you are wanting to recover from previews then you need to look at your back up strategies. Or just export full sized jpegs!!
Rob Cole wrote:
The points in having 1:1 previews for archived images are:
* So you can zoom in if you want.
* To maintain the potential for recovery.
* So you don't have to bother computing an optimal size for standard preview, nor wonder if you computed it correctly or not, nor remember to recompute it when you buy a new monitor...
Granted, if you don't have enough space, or you'd rather use the space for other things, then yes: standard preview size matters. But since I've never been faced with such constraint, I've never computed an optimal preview size. The general principal though is to save a preview that will fit nicely in the area you will be using to view it. So if I were to compute an optimum, I would:
* Compute viewing area.
* Figure out how willing Lightroom is to upsize an existing preview before rendering a larger version (if image is online), and how willing I am to view reduced quality upsampled image if Lightroom is willing to upsize some (or if image is offline).
And from that one could derive the optimum size for standard preview on their system and workflow.
UPDATE: From the Lightroom help file:
Standard Preview Size
Specifies the maximum pixel dimension for the rendered preview. Choose the size that accommodates the display you’re working with: select a standard preview size that is equal to or larger than the longest edge of your screen resolution. For example, if your screen resolution is 1920 x 1200 pixels, choose Standard Preview Size > 2048 Pixels. If your screen resolution exceeds 2048 pixels, Lightroom generates a 1:1 preview instead.
Rob

After Effects change size of the Movie after rendering mp4

Hi,
I created a new composition and wanted to render it as an mp4 file. The composition has a size of 1500px x 1000px, after rendering, the mp4 file has a size of 750px x 576px - everthing is distorted. I don't know what happened, because everything was prechecked because the size matters.
Is someone know what happend and what I can do, to prevent such a mistake? (it is my first After Effects project ever - I'm a nube)
Thank you Dan

mp4 is a compression format based on specific blocks of pixels and the legal sizes are set by the codec, there is nothing you can do except pick another codec if you must have 1500 X 1000 as a final size. Why did you pick that size? If you must deliver an mp4 then you should be working with standard sizes for your compositions and they should be square pixels... Always square pixels for mp4.

Photoshop image size for Premiere Pro CS4 project.

Bless me folks, for I have sinned, it has been a few years since my last video project and it was done using Premiere 6. I now have CS4 Production Premium. In Premiere 6, when I wanted to bring images into the timeline i would create them in photoshop and save them as 720 x 540 bmp files.
My question is, in Premiere CS4, what size should I make my photoshop files? I want the final movie to take up most of a wide screen hdtv with a minimal amount of bars at the top and bottom. I want my images to appear clearly and the text on the images to appear clearly on screen. I will be creating a dvd and or blu ray, whichever works, and I may eventually want to output the movie for the web as well.
So ... what new width and height and file type should I use for my photoshop files? They all need to be the same size because sometimes I use several consecutive photoshop files to show movement on screen because I have not learned how to use after effects yet.
Any help appreciated.

Thanks for the info Dennis. The reason that the size matters to me is that I want a clear quality picture on the hdtv screen. And with my primitive jibjab-like moving picture technology, I need each image to be the same size so that things move around the screen exactly where I want. I know that if I start off with a small image size it will look terrible onscreen, so your 1920 x 1080 suggestion is probably what I am looking for.
I think i used the bmp format in Premiere 6 for performance reasons, but it sounds like maybe performance using psd files has improved with cs4.
I appreciate the jump-start.
-Mark

Photo size, does it matter

I want to know if the photo size matters when saving in the 3rd Gen Ipad, i.e. will it take up room therefore eating up my GB? I have about 8000 photos, and it is taking up 20GB.

The photos cannot be stored on your iPad in zero space. If they take up 20GB wherever they are now, they will take 20GB wherever else you put them.

Am I doing the right thing of selecting MBP instead of rMBP?

Hi,
I'm a game developer and am getting my first Mac computer just to jump into iOS game development. I currently have a Core-i3 17" laptop and it's doing what I want but can't make iOS files. I'm not sure what to do with my current machine when I get the Mac, maybe I keep it for our game development team, maybe not.
I spent 3 weeks reading reviews and forum boards regarding MBP and rMBP and finally chose MBP but as I've read more MBP reviews, reviewers despite saying that MBP is a good machine, say that it's the last iteration of Apple in the design and "a thing from the past".
Let me tell you about my thought process and hopefully people can help me:
Display:
rMBP's best thing against MBP is it's display, which I don't think I have any use for. I usually work with text editors to write code and almost never watch movies with my laptop's screen and always connect it to my TV via HDMI and no game engine is Retina-enabled as of now and I don't have images that fit that display nor I do film editing or intensive photography/Photoshop. So if I get the Retina display, I'll mostly switch it to 1440x900 in order to "work" with most softwares and as I'll be still using Windows alot, the 2880x1800 has no usage there as none of the softwares that I work there updated themselves. But it's IPS/LPS technology will be lovely for me and I don't forget first time I saw one of those 27" Apple monitors that blew me away.
rMBP wins here but I'm afraid it will hurt me more than being useful to me.
HDD:
I'll surely install Windows there so a 256Gb SSD will fill up way easily. I'll keep a lot of stuff on my machine and getting a better external drive helps but if I get rMBP I'll have to buy one, which adds another $100 or $200.
Also give that if you fill up an SDD, you'll lose performance gradually, I'll probably have to invest around $200 to get an external HDD if I end up with rMBP.
Also I want to install games on Windows to use it's GPU and with 256Gb, that will suffer if you use more than it's %85, it will be a waste. I know I can install games on external drive but that's not cool.
Yes SSD is fast, and my helps my work and loading games but I think here the size matters more than speed.
So MBP wins here. (I can later change MBP's optical drive to an SSD and put my OS'es there)
Upgradibility:
Since I'll probably leave for a teaching job and there are not apple stores there, if I want to repair my machine, I'll have to use unauthorized repairs so fixing MBP's are hard already, give the glued battery and soldered RAM, makes it almost impossible.
And also if I get rMBP, I'll have to panic and upgrade RAM at least, even though even games do not need that amount of RAM and when they do, my GPU will be the bottle neck years before that.
(Very nice article regarding thsii: http://ifixit.org/2763/the-new-macbook-pro-unfixable-unhackable-untenable/)
MBP clearly wins here.
Weight & Size:
Yes I, like most people, prefer a lighter machine but since I'm to a 17" HP and an old Core Due Toshiba, I think the 15" MBP will be light enough and that extra lightness is not mandatory for me.
rMBP wins but goes to some extra points that MBP aldready has.
Optical Drive:
I almost do not use it, so I can live without one. But I like the fact that I, apparently, can remove MBP's super drive and put an SSD there, maybe I'll do this like in about a year or so that I'll upgrade it's RAM, give that I take MBP.
MBP wins, because I can remove the optical drive and put whatever I want instead.
Resale value:
rMBP wins, clearly. Because most people's brains are in their eyes.
Possible error:
rMBP is first generation and new batch of a new electronic product and we've already heard and read about defected machines and me living overseas will make it even worse if anything shows up.
One of the things that I don't like about MBP is that I feel like I'm buying a last-generation thing because clearly Apple's aim is towards Retina and SSD but I'm going against it. Maybe I'm all wrong and should trust Apple.
So what do you think on this? Please be specific as you like, I hate general sentences without proof. And if you compare things, please show some website or proof for it so it will be easier to talk on a solid base/accusation.
Thanks in advance. It will be my first Mac that I'm buying with a looot of savings, that's why I'm scared a bit.

Ordered 7/16/2012 the 2012 15.4" Macbook Pro (NON retina)
With:
2.6GHz i7 CPU
1GB GPU
HR Antiglare Screen
750GB 7200 RPM HDD (soon to be replaced with Crucial M4 SSD with a fresh install of Mountian Lion)
I really wanted the rMBP but just could not see the real value of the Retina display when the (HR) 1680 X1050 is really ideal for me. I also have the late 2011 Macbook Air that has 1440 X 900 resolution, it's not antiglare and not glossy either. I also have a 2006 Black Macbook with 1280 X 800 and it's not antiglare and not glossy. If the rMBP offered a antiglare display I'd probably still be deciding (took 3 weeks already).
The thoughts that keep me on the fence between the 15" rMBP and 15" MBP was "I need to buy the future and not invest in the past".
And since I made the decision Im glad I did (15" MBP Antiglare).
my Pros/Cons list
                         rMBP          MBP
Speed                   X                X     (tie, if add SSD)
Expansion                               X
Weight                  X
Generation                              X     (decided long ago to NOT buy 1st generation anything, if possible)
Repairability                            X
Resale                  X                       (not sure here but makes since, new beats old)
Antiglare                                 X
Cost                     X
Ports                                       X     (FW800, Gigabit Ethernet, DVD/CD drive)
Value                                       X

Help me pick a new powerbook/ibook

I got the go ahead from my boss to pick out a new laptop (the ibook G3 12.1 800 is broken and oudated.) I know this is subjective but wanted some thoughts on what's important to have and what's not. I'm trying to keep it around $1200-1400
Some things I'm considering
1) really want a superdrive
2) With most specs being equal, is it that great advantage to get a powerbook over an ibook?
3) I've grown accustomed to 12 inch screen, but wouldn't a 15 be really nice? (I do all my computing on this screen)
4) Is the backlit keyboard that big of a deal?
5) Bundled software is not that important
6) What do you think about buying apple-refurbished and or slightly discounted models?
7) Any other suggestions in your experience, like, 'I wish I would've got this' or I paid more for this but didn't really use it, etc.
On this computer I will do some simple web design, word processing and brochures for my company, some but not a lot of video editing, and other general tasks. Thanks All

Hi Bruce,
Welcome to Apple Discussions
I can't tell you whether you should pick a iBook or not, but I can give you some of the facts. First of all, your price range ($1200 - $1400) is less then the cheapest Powerbook (new).
1) really want a superdrive
Well, for $1300 you can get the 14" 1.42Ghz iBook. The only thing I don't like about the 14" is that some people notice that the resolution isn't as good as the 12". Its very minute, but both models have the same pixels even though they have different screen sizes. It comes with a SuperDrive like you want and it has 60Gb hard drive, which should last some time.
ith most specs being equal, is it that great advantage to get a powerbook over an ibook?
I find that the 12" Powerbook is not that big of a step up from the 14" iBook, so I don't usually suggest it. I would get the 15" if I were to get a Powerbook. Anyways, the real differences is that it has a better display, better video and graphics support, FireWire 800, PC Slot, better SuperDrive, and a faster processor. Basically the display will be much clearer and the resolution is higher. The Powerbook lets you hook up external monitors like the Cinema Display without any "hacks". FireWire 800 transfers information at 800Mbs rather then FireWire 400 at 400Mbs (USB 2.0 has 480Mbs). The problem with FireWire 800 is that its not as common and the products are more expensive. The SuperDrive has the DL (Double Layer) feature.
I've grown accustomed to 12 inch screen, but wouldn't a 15 be really nice? (I do all my computing on this screen)
The 15" I think is a whole lot better if you are big into graphics and like to have multiple applications/windows open (don't forget watching movies too). The only problem to is that the 15" looses its portability feature depending on if size matters. A 15" is going to have bigger case and it is going to take up more room, for some people that is a negative.
Is the backlit keyboard that big of a deal?
I like the backlit keyboard because it is easier to see those buttons that one isn't used to typing when they are in the dark. It is hard to differentiate between F2 and F3 or F5 in the dark. I believe this also might make the battery loose its charge faster but I don't know.
Any other suggestions in your experience, like, 'I wish I would've got this' or I paid more for this but didn't really use it, etc.
I am big into media editing, programming, and things of that nature, which need a faster computer. I bought the iBook G3 1.33Ghz for school and for traveling. It has served me well for those purposes, but it is time for an upgrade. I am giving this to my dad so when he's traveling or sitting in bed he can go online to check his email and do his work. I suggest buying an external hard drive that is at least as big as the one that you buy in your computer. It is a good idea to back your computer up periodically. I have too many photos to fit on my 40Gb hard drive, so I put my iPhoto 6 Library on my SmartDisk CrossFire 160Gb. I also would recommend buying a Apple Wireless Mouse because it is so better then using the track pad. The only negative is that it doesn't have a scroll wheel.
I can't tell you which to buy, but you should think about what you are going to use your computer for now and in the future. If you are not going to use many "pro" applications (Aperture) then I don't personally see the need for a Powerbook. It really depends on how you think you are going to use it and your budget.
I hope that helps,
Jon
G4 1.33Ghz iBook, G4 iMac 1Ghz, G3 500Mhz iBook, Macintosh 128K, eMate... Mac OS X (10.4.3) Airport EX, Moto Razr, iLife '06, SmartDisk 160Gb, Apple BT Mouse, Sight..

Queries regarding Flash Builder and Augmented Reality.

I am Sarat from India. I'm a software engineer with working knowledge of Java, so Flash AS and OOP are understandable for me. I am working on an augmented reality project. I am quite new to Flash, Adobe Community and I've got some queries regarding Augmented Reality and Flash Builder:
1. Flash Builder 4.6 comes with a default Flex 4.6 SDK. However, Flex 4.6 SDK wasn't allowing me to compile and run some example files. So I've downloaded Flex 4.0A version from Adobe.com. Now the examples are running fine, but would there be any problem if i try deploying such projects in a website or as a desktop app? Once the code is compiled into a swf file, the flex framework used doesn't make much difference, does it?
2. Would the AR project run effectively on a website, given various internet/processor speeds worldwide? Would the effectiveness of the AR project, deployed on a website, depend on the number of triangles in the 3D models i.e. dae files? Because as per my understanding heavy models implies more time to download the flash app into the local browser from the internet and more time to render them by the papervision 3D engine right?
3. Can we develop a stand alone desktop AR app using Flash Builder? Using Adobe AIR we can, i guess. Please refer some tutorial, if possible.
4. I've seen that we can implement multiple-marker-tracking AR using vectors/arrays in AS. Would there be any performance issues depending on the size of the vectors/arrays used.
5. Can someone please mention some tips to improve performance of an AR app (desktop app and web app)?
6. What would be, approximately, the cost of FLARManager, FLARToolkit commercial versions, if you have any idea? I've gone through their website but they did not mention the costs.
7. Would applying bitmap material to the dae models pull down the web app/mobile app/desktop app performance, given some 4 to 5 dae models in the scene?
8. Is it advisable to use multiple markers with multiple dae models or single marker with Flash-based GUI option to load different models onto the same marker?
It would be very helpful for me if someone could answer my above queries.
Sarat.

#1, If it compiles then you have no issue. There's no reason at this point not to use 4.6. You should bundle a captive runtime to assure the users computer won't need to have AIR installed at all.
#2, Papervision is old. Use the Stage3D and/or a wrapper framework. As far as the generic "If I download lots of data will it take the user more time to load it", well, of course. Just don't make the loading experience painful. Entertain them while they way or find ways of displaying data sooner than later. If it's desirable on the web has more to do with the context of the app and the device displaying it. In other words, a phone user would find it easy but obviously not a desktop user.
#3, Definitely referring you to Google on that one.
#4, Size always matters, it's common sense. The more you process the harder it is. While I haven't done AR I've used the Microsoft Kinect SDK and ANE and tracking was extremely fast but limited. From what I've seen and your basic built in location and direction hardware on any mobile device you shouldn't have much trouble. Depends on what you're doing.
#5, This discussion would be way too large for a forum. You'd need to consult a firm experienced in AR development.
#6, "Applications using the commercial license do not have to provide source code, but must pay a licensing fee. Contact ARToolworks at [email protected] for more information." They will base your price on your product, there is no single price.
#7, The models could be huge and elaborate or tiny and simple which changes the answer. Consult the answer in #4. Ultimately most people are getting on fast networks with mobile and excessively fast on desktop/wifi. Size matters a lot less than 3 years ago.
#8, Depends on what you're doing. You have to explain it.

Size Matters...

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for