SIze of Menus for BluRay

I appologize for this newbie question but here goes.
I made a BluRay folder and burned to disc a project with two menus (all from the Encore library). The first has Play all and Scenes buttons with a background and the second is a Scenes Menu with video buttons both of which were labeled "wide" and apparently are 720x480 with a 1.2 aspect ratio.
When I burned the folder, the Play all menu (first play) fills the screen nicely, but the second "Scenes" menu only fills about half the screen ie the buttons are in the right place, but the background is just in the middle of the screen.
I thought that the encoding process would enlarge both backgrounds to fill the screen but repeatedly, it doesn't.
Is this the normal process for Encore. If so, do I have to make the menus 1920x1080 in Photoshop (footage is HDV from an HV20 camera) or use the "Library" menus labeled HD for both or just the menus beyond the first one.
Thanks in advance,
John Rich

>use the "Library" menus labeled HD
Purely a guess here, but that's probably a very workable solution. I do know that an online retailer of Encore menus does make both SD and HD versions, and you need to pick the right one.

Similar Messages

[help] Transcoding for Bluray using a CS5 project on CS4

Hey guys, I'm back again.
I'm not sure how to approach this, but I am currently using Encore CS5 but my school uses CS4. I created a full project (the same film that I have had issues with previously) and changed the build from DVD to Bluray and tried to have CS4 transcode. As soon as the menus were done rendering, CS4 will crash citing a rendering error. As I am typing right now, CS5 is transcoding for bluray without a single hitch. The only problem is, my laptop does not have a bluray burner, so i have to rely on the school's system that still runs CS4 to burn the bluray.
I'm thinking that a workaround to this is probably to duplicate my project and bring in the transcoded files as an asset and put them in the timeline, place in the chapter markers/poster frames and build from there. I'm wondering if there's an easier way to do this.

There is no need to burn iso to disc using any other software.
You can burn iso to disc from Encore also.
Steps to burn iso to disc through encore -
1. create a new project
2. Go to build panel
3. select the Format as Blu ray and output as Blu ray disc
4. Select source as Disc image.
5. Browse the image path and burn the blu ray disc.
Thanks,
Pankaj Gauba

I am making multiple DVD's of roughly 50 hours of footage on DVD Studio pro with 4 separate menus for 4 different 'parts' or series if you will. 50 hours - 20 episodes - 4 parts of 5 episodes each. What are my options in terms of burning these parts on to

I am making multiple DVD's of roughly 50 hours of footage on DVD Studio pro with 4 separate menus for 4 different 'parts' or series if you will. 50 hours - 20 episodes - 4 parts of 5 episodes each. What are my options in terms of burning these parts on to separate DVD's, what is the process, what size DVD RW should I buy, what bitrate should I use, and what quality I should expect for the burn. Any advice or insight is welcome.

>>What are my options in terms of burning these parts on to separate DVD's<<
20 episodes totaling 50 hours equals about 2.5 hours per episode assuming all episodes have the same duration. Fitting 2.5 hours onto one single layer DVD would require a low bit rate which means quality wouldn't be anywhere near best, but that's a judgement call you'll have to make based on several factors. For example; if there is not much motion in the video (talking heads, etc), you can get by with a lower bit rate and may not notice any quality difference.
>>what is the process>>
The process is essentially the same as it is when authoring a regular DVD with 2 hours or less of content. However, with as many discs as you'd need to complete this "set," you'll need to create a separate DVD Studio Project for each disc. Basically, you'd use one of Compressor's DVD Presets (or customize a preset) to create an MPEG--2 video file (.m2v) and a Dolby Digital audio file (.AC3). Import both of those assets into your DVD Studio Pro project for authoring and burning.
If you want to keep one episode per disc, DVD Studio Pro does have a 150 minute preset or you could use dual-layer discs with a higher bit rate for better quality. Again; your call.
>>what size DVD RW should I buy<<
Size? 12cm. Capacity? Single layer, single sided DVD discs (DVD-5) have a rated capacity of 4.7Gb (4.37Gb actual), including menus. If you use single layer discs and want to keep the quality reasonably good, you'd need at least 50 discs to complete this "set" with each disc holding roughly 2 hours of footage if you keep the menu on each disc simple. Or, you could use dual-layer discs (DVD-9) which have a capacity of about 7.95Gb - almost doubling the recordable capacity. There are also dual-sided, dual-layer discs available (DVD-18) but they are relatively expensive and have to be manually turned over to continue playback ... but they do have roughly 15.9Gb capacity.
>>what bitrate should I use, and what quality I should expect for the burn<<
Exactly; the quality is dependent on the bit rate chosen, as well as the quality of the compression. Using compression markers where needed can greatly increase the quality of playback but will most likely increase the file size of the compressed video. For the best quality, keeping the bit rate as high as possible allowed under the DVD specification will yield the best quality but some DVD players may choke if the bit rate is too high. For best quality I typically aim for a bit rate around 7.6 to 8.0Mbps but that will only allow about one hour of footage.
Naturally, if you decrease the bit rate, you can fit more footage onto the disc but quality will be sacraficed.   Here's a chart approximating DVD bit rates and durations for single layer discs (does not include space for menus):
3.5Mbps - 120 minutes
5.0Mbps -   95 minutes
6.0Mbps -   82 minutes
7.6Mbps -   65 minutes
8.0Mbps -   60 minutes
-DH

Encore CS5.1 and DTS sound for BluRay: Has there been any success

I have not updated to the latest version (can't afford at the moment) but I would really like to know if there have been any improvements in the DTS sound file handling.
In CS5 you can NOT create a BluRay disk with dts sound. dtshd (using DTS MasterAudioSuite) are not accepted at all and .cpt files are accepted but can only be used for DVD projects (when trying to create a BD project with .cpt you can an error of file not valid for BluRay).
Has something changed in newer version?
I would be really interested to know about this.
Thanks in advance

Ok, ladies & gentlemen, let's see what's going on here.
First of all I would like to thank my friend George from a London based studio who was kind enough to help me with his professional DTS MA suite encoder
Here is a zipped file which contains two dts .cpt audio files
https://www.yousendit.com/download/MEtUbUpSSU9xRTJ4dnc9PQ
1) The one is star754.cpt
DTS stream tools gives this info in verification
Num Channels = 2
Sample Rate = 48000
Lossy Encode
Samples per frame: 512
Core FSIZE (bytes):     1006
Core Bitrate (kbps):     754
****** End of input bit stream ******
1875 out of 1875 frames verified successfully
Stream passes verification with no errors.
and mediainfo gives this
General
Complete name                    : V:\Temp\star754.cpt
Format                           : DTS
Format/Info                      : Digital Theater Systems
File size                        : 1.80 MiB
Duration                         : 20s 0ms
Overall bit rate                 : 755 Kbps
Audio
Format                           : DTS
Format/Info                      : Digital Theater Systems
Duration                         : 20s 0ms
Bit rate mode                    : Constant
Bit rate                         : 755 Kbps
Channel(s)                       : 2 channels
Channel positions                : Front: L R
Sampling rate                    : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth                        : 16 bits
Compression mode                 : Lossy
Stream size                      : 1.80 MiB (100%)
This file is OK when building blu ray projects. No problem
2) The second file is star1509.cpt
DTS stream tools gives this info in verification
Num Channels = 2
Sample Rate = 48000
Lossy Encode
Samples per frame: 512
Core FSIZE (bytes):     2013
Core Bitrate (kbps):     1509
****** End of input bit stream ******
1875 out of 1875 frames verified successfully
Stream passes verification with no errors.
and mediainfo gives this info
General
Complete name                    : V:\Temp\star1509.cpt
Format                           : DTS
Format/Info                      : Digital Theater Systems
File size                        : 3.60 MiB
Duration                         : 20s 0ms
Overall bit rate                 : 1 510 Kbps
Audio
Format                           : DTS
Format/Info                      : Digital Theater Systems
Duration                         : 20s 0ms
Bit rate mode                    : Constant
Bit rate                         : 1 510 Kbps
Channel(s)                       : 2 channels
Channel positions                : Front: L R
Sampling rate                    : 48.0 KHz
Bit depth                        : 16 bits
Compression mode                 : Lossy
Stream size                      : 3.60 MiB (100%)
This file although it is accepted comes and with the error that it is not BluRay legal. So it is NOT OK

ADF Menus for Page Navigation

I have completed the [ADF Menus for Page Navigation|http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/11/cuecards/adf_set_43/ccset43_ALL.html] tutorial.
Everything work as expected, with one exception. The 'Add and Bind Navigation Pane Components' section has you put a Navigation Pane in the menBar facet of the panel header. In the Hint dropdown you select 'buttons' and set some other properties.
When I run the finished project, the menu items in the menbar are displaying vertically instead of horizontally as the image with the tutorial shows. Why? How do I get them to display horizontally?
I really like that menu model and plan utilizing it in real world application; unfortunately, have the menubar dislay vertically in the panel header is unacceptable.
<f:facet name="top">
        <af:panelHeader text="ADF Menu Example" id="pt_ph1" size="0">
          <f:facet name="context"/>
          <f:facet name="menuBar">
            <af:navigationPane id="pt_np1" hint="buttons" var="menuInfo"
                               value="#{root_menu}">
              <f:facet name="nodeStamp">
                  <af:commandNavigationItem text="#{menuInfo.label}"
                                            id="pt_cni1" icon="#{menuInfo.icon}"
                                            destination="#{menuInfo.destination}"
                                            action="#{menuInfo.doAction}"/>
              </f:facet>
            </af:navigationPane>
          </f:facet>
          <f:facet name="legend"/>
          <f:facet name="info"/>
        </af:panelHeader>
      </f:facet>

Ok, I am still at a loss as to why this is happening.
It seems to be related to the either navigationpane or the menu meta data.
I have only foudn one difference so far. The tutorial states that JDeveloper us org.apache.myfaces.trinidad.model.XMLMenuModel managed bean class by default; however, my project used oracle.adf.view.rich.model.MDSMenuModel. When I use the XMLMenuModel, the only visible diference is in the Visual Editor and the Preview panes. The menus appear horizontally in those panes, but not when you run the application in a web borwser.
Still troubleshooting.
[Tutorial: ADF Menu Model Managed Beans|http://www.oracle.com/technology/products/jdev/11/cuecards/adf_set_43/ccset43_tellme4_5.html]
My project code:
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="windows-1252" ?>
<adfc-config xmlns="http://xmlns.oracle.com/adf/controller" version="1.2">
<metadata-resource>/WEB-INF/adfc-sale-config.xml</metadata-resource>
<metadata-resource>/WEB-INF/adfc-products-config.xml</metadata-resource>
<view id="home">
    <page>/home.jspx</page>
</view>
<view id="help">
    <page>/help.jspx</page>
</view>
<view id="preferences">
    <page>/preferences.jspx</page>
</view>
<view id="shop">
    <page>/shop.jspx</page>
</view>
<control-flow-rule id="__1">
    <from-activity-id id="__2">*</from-activity-id>
    <control-flow-case id="__3">
      <from-outcome id="__4">adfMenu_home</from-outcome>
      <to-activity-id id="__5">home</to-activity-id>
    </control-flow-case>
    <control-flow-case id="__6">
      <from-outcome id="__7">adfMenu_help</from-outcome>
      <to-activity-id id="__8">help</to-activity-id>
    </control-flow-case>
    <control-flow-case id="__9">
      <from-outcome id="__10">adfMenu_preferences</from-outcome>
      <to-activity-id id="__11">preferences</to-activity-id>
    </control-flow-case>
    <control-flow-case id="__12">
      <from-outcome id="__13">adfMenu_shop</from-outcome>
      <to-activity-id id="__14">shop</to-activity-id>
    </control-flow-case>
</control-flow-rule>
<managed-bean id="__15">
    <description id="__17">Menu Model Managed Bean</description>
    <managed-bean-name id="__16">root_menu</managed-bean-name>
    <managed-bean-class>oracle.adf.view.rich.model.MDSMenuModel</managed-bean-class>
    <managed-bean-scope id="__18">request</managed-bean-scope>
    <managed-property id="__20">
      <property-name id="__19">createHiddenNodes</property-name>
      <value id="__21">false</value>
    </managed-property>
    <managed-property id="__23">
      <property-name id="__25">source</property-name>
      <property-class id="__24">java.lang.String</property-class>
      <value id="__22">/WEB-INF/root_menu.xml</value>
    </managed-property>
</managed-bean>
</adfc-config>

Compressor exports for Bluray

OK am in danger of getting totally confused.
I'm editing HDV footage ( 1440x1080i ) in FCP by importing it as Pro res at the same dimensions, 1440x1080.
Having edited the footage I send it to Qt at the same dimensions 1440x1080 so I can impoprt it into Compressor to make mpeg2 files for Bluray..
In QT properties, QT reports that the 'actual' size of the exported Prores QT file is 1888x1062.
Now I understand that this difference in dimensions is simply because QT is using square pixels to display the actual rectangular pixels of HDV and that QT discards 'redundant' pixels to reduce the dimensions from what they should be, 1920x1080, to 1888x1062.
OK so this could get really confusing but I think I'm happy in understanding it but here's where it gets even more confusing.
I import the 1440x1080 Prores QT file into compressor to make an MPEG Elementary Stream and when I preview this in QT it tells me that the dimensions have changed again to 1440x810 pixels??
What else is going on here?
What's the point of having Full HD at 1080 vertical lines of resolution if the Bluray file is discarding 210 lines of resolution by default. Is compressor discarding these by default. I don't believe I came across an option to reduce my 1080 resolution to 810 whn using compressor. I'll do it all again just to scrutinize it but I'd be interested in some experienced users comments.

Got it.

I have a Windows 8.1 machine. I used a projecteor a while back in a Power Point presentation. Now my menus for Adobe are very small and hard to read. The print command is so compressed that I cannot read or use it. How do I fix this problem?

I used a projecteor a while back in a Power Point presentation. Now my menus for Adobe are very small and hard to read. The print command is so compressed that I cannot read or use it. How do I fix this problem?

There is no application called "Adobe" - you are either working with Adobe Acrobat or the free Adobe Reader. Open up the preferences for the application (Edit>Preferences), then go to the "General" category and modify the settings for "Scale for screen resolution". You will have to restart the application after you do that. Does that fix your problems?

Valid size not available for this creation when using Greeting Card feature

Using PSE9 with a Mac. When attempting to create a greeting card, after selecting the photo, the Greeting Card, I receive a pop up error message as follows:
"Valid Size Not Available For This Creation". (All other Create functions such as Photo Book, Photo Calendar, and Photo Collage appear to be working). I have been in contact with Adobe Support and have been instructed to do a number of things from creating a new preferences file to uninstalling and re-installing the PSE software, with no result. Has anyone else run into this problem, and if so have found a fix? Thanks.

I've been tearing my hair out over this one also. I've been on hold for over 10 hrs with Adobe Support waited over almost 2 weeks and still no resolution. I'm trying to create the Save the Date cards for my wedding and I can't wait for Adobe. Removing the preferences file and uninstalling/reinstalling does not fix the problem.
That said I did figure out a workaround for this. It's easy but it does require Windows. For me this was no big deal as I do own a Windows box.
Get the free trial version of PE9 for Windows and install it. If you don't have a Windows computer get to a friend that has one
Upload some of your photos to the PE9 Windows Organizer (it's identical to the mac version)
Select Create and then Greeting card. Photoshop will launch the guided edit feature for greeting cards.
Select the Layout feature and once you find out that you like save it as Photoshop project. Repeat this step for as many layouts as necessary.
Copy your Photoshop project files (and any folders) to your mac.
Open the project files as you would with any other Photoshop file.
You can now select the Create feature. You will be able add your pictures and resize them, you will be able to add/remove text, you'll be able to change the backgound/borders, add graphics...pretty much anything...EXCEPT automatically modify the layout. If you click on Layout, PE9 returns nothing. You can however go into full edit mode and if you have decent Photoshop skills you can make any changes to the layout manually.
If I had to put money on this I'd say that there is a problem with the PE9 Mac installation package. For some reason it is not deploying the layout data/files or it is not putting them in the right place. For this reason the program can't find the layouts when the user selects the greeting card guided edit.
Good luck.

I can't download the apps with big size like need for spees, but in apps with normal size(less than 100KB)there is no problem,is there any body who can help me?

I can't download the apps with big size like need for spees

Have a little patience. 4 minutes is only a short time for someone to find your post and reply to it. Also clicking on "This Solved My Problem" marks your problem as solved so many folks that may otherwise help will pass the question by since it is "solved."
I suggest you start a new question that gives a good title to a specific problem. Then in the body of the thread describe the problem in detail, tell us what steps you have tried so far to correct the problem, what happened, and what error messages you received.

How to get the file size (in bytes) for all files in a directory?

How to get the file size (in bytes) for all files in a directory?
The following code does not work. isFile() does NOT recognize files as files but only as directories. Why?
Furthermore the size is not retrieved correctly.
How do I have to code it otherwise? Is there a way of not converting f-to-string-to-File again but iterate over all file objects instead?
Thank you
Peter
java.io.File f = new java.io.File("D:/todo/");
files = f.list();
for (int i = 0; i < files.length; i++) {
System.out.println("fn=" + files);
if (new File(files[i]).isFile())
     System.out.println("file[" + i + "]=" + files[i] + " size=" + (new File(files[i])).length() ); }

pstein wrote:
...The following code does not work. Work?! It does not even compile! Please consider posting code in the form of an SSCCE in future.
Here is an SSCCE.
import java.io.File;
class ListFiles {
    public static void main(String[] args) {
        java.io.File f = new java.io.File("/media/disk");
        // provides only the file names, not the path/name!
        //String[] files = f.list();
        File[] files = f.listFiles();
        for (int i = 0; i < files.length; i++) {
            System.out.println("fn=" + files);
if (files[i].isFile()) {
System.out.println(
"file[" +
i +
"]=" +
files[i] +
" size=" +
(files[i]).length() );
}Edit 1:
Also, in future, when posting code, code snippets, HTML/XML or input/output, please use the code tags to retain the indentation and formatting.   To do that, select the code and click the CODE button seen on the Plain Text tab of the message posting form. It took me longer to clean up that code and turn it into an SSCCE, than it took to +solve the problem.+
Edited by: AndrewThompson64 on Jul 21, 2009 8:47 AM

Pre-Size Your PPI for Best Print - Once Good Advice Still Good?

In another thread someone mentinoed pre-sizing image data to prepare it for best printing.
For a long time it's been "standard advice" to resize images so that the ppi is an even division of the printer's dpi, because some years ago occasionally one would run across printers that would produce poor results if you didn't - you might see jaggies in straight edges for example.
Thing is, computers have (not so) quietly been getting more powerful over time, and printer makers have been competing with one another to try to make their printers produce better results than the other guys. One way they've done this is by improving the quality of the algorithms in the printer drivers. Use of mega storage and high accuracy math, which was once taxing on older computer systems, is now standard practice.
So it's time to question the old rule of thumb.
Making a few assumptions about the many variables (what printer, what OS, what version of drivers, what application being used to print) , there seem to be several questions here:
1. Can the image resolution be too high, causing the printer driver to make bad decisions about what ink dots to lay down where on the paper?
2. Does it help or matter if the image PPI is an even division of the printer's DPI?
As I have done in the past, I set out to do some actual testing, to see if I can actually SEE anything to help answer these questions.
I created a sharp image to be printed at 3 x 2 inches: http://Noel.ProDigitalSoftware.com/ForumPosts/Ghirardelli.jpg
Then I printed it at 6 different resolutions (1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, and 100 ppi) by resampling the image, labeling it, printing from Photoshop CS5, and feeding the same sheet of HP Premium Plus photo paper through my older HP 932c inkjet printer 6 times. The printer was set to its highest quality settings, including 2400 x 1200 dpi mode. This was the result:
I then looked critically and as objectively as I could at the different images. Here are my observations:
Naked eye:
The four highest resolution images (1000, 720, 567, and 300 ppi) all seemed to have an equivalent high level of crisp detail.
I could not detect the inkjet dots. Smooth objects look smooth.
Jeweler's Loupe:
I could see significant reduction in the finest details in the 300 ppi print vs. the three higher resolution prints, and a slight reduction in the 567 ppi vs. 720.
At no resolution were any jaggies or evidence of aliasing visible.
The inkjet dot pattern was plainly visible, and it does differ between the different prints. But it was not possible to say whether one was "better".
Things seem to have a little more texture in the 1000 ppi print vs. the 720 and 567 ppi prints.
Macro Photo:
Lacking a high resolution scanner, I took photographs of the 6 different prints. Unfortunately, I didn't have the time to set up with my best lighting and lens combination, so I got some reflections off the glossy paper, and and at this resolution I can't really see the inkject dots in the photos. I want to repeat this when I can find more time to do it better. As I did these photos hand-held, I believe the variances between them could be slightly influencing the results. But I'm going to post them anyway, for you to see.
I could see ever so slightly more detail in the 720 ppi print vs. the 1000 ppi print, though from the size of the tiny dust/light reflections I think it may have just been the better focused. Note that this observation is not supported by direct observation through the jeweler's loupe, above.
The 1000 ppi and 567 ppi prints seems to have slightly more noise or texture than the 720 ppi print. Again, this might be issues introduced by the photography process, though I did note a possible increase in texture in the 1000 ppi print with the jeweler's loupe as well.
Beyond just the blurring, I could see some evidence that straight lines are not quite as straight in the lower resolutions (300 ppi and lower). This seemed more apparent than with the jeweler's loupe examination, and I wonder whether the Photoshop downsampling process could have introduced it.
Left to right, top to bottom: 1000, 720, 567, 300, 200, 100:
Conclusions:
Printing to my HP 932c inkject printer on Windows 7 x64
300 ppi is not sufficient to coax the best possible detail out of an inkjet printer. It appears a number in the vicinity of 720 or more is better, and this number could be much higher with modern very high resolution printers (mine's old).
Speed was no different in printing any of these - a modern computer can process a huge amount of data in the blink of an eye.
When a sufficiently high resolution image is printed (in this case 567 ppi or higher) I saw virtually no evidence that a particular ppi value is superior, for example an even division of the printer's dpi, though in hindsight I realize I should have prepared a 600 ppi image (duh). I will add a 600 ppi image before I re-photograph the results.
It's possible ever so slightly more texture becomes visible at 1000 ppi than 720 ppi, but it might be just noise.
Practically speaking, from looking critically at the results I could not see a reason to pre-size the image for a specific ppi value.
I encourage you to experiment and report your results with your particular combination of gear.
Your comments are welcome!
-Noel

Noel Carboni wrote:
Jeff Schewe wrote:
I would never suggest people actually downsample though...why waste the pixels?
Exactly. There was a statement in another recent thread that downsampling to be an even fraction of the print dpi was important to do.
It might have been a misapplied extension of the advice to upsample. It's not been all that long that we've had big enough high resolution data that even makes downsampling a possibility.
-Noel
I believe I was the one to make that statement, which was based on recommendations by an Epson Print expert at a seminar demoing printers. He showed to prints from the same file, one set at an even multiple of 720 and the other some random number. It was subtle but visible the difference. That was probably 5 years ago.
In the meantime, I have made extensive tests of prints on my Epson 3800 trying many combinations of single pass, hi speed, Super fine print (2880x1440) and down to the basic level.
Everything evened out at 720 dpi. At 360, which is where I output from ACR, I can make an 8x12 print with no resampling whatsoever. Upping that to 720 and pushing the printer hard (2880x1440, single pass on Canson Platine), I see a discernable difference in the smooth tonalities.
As I understood you from past conversations, you employ the maximum output size from ACR which in my case, would double the file size by upsampling, and if necessary, downsample from that. I am not comfortable doing that as a default operation, but perhaps Jeff S might step in here and clarify. After all, ACR does offer that option! But my file size now goes from ~70MP to 143 MP, cutting my storage capability by 1/2. It's not a trivial matter when two of us here can run 600 to 800 images in 1/2 day!

Recommended image size and dimensions for images displayed on iPad retina?

What are the recommended dpi image size and dimensions for images designed in DPS app as displayed on an iPad retina?

Take a look at the following link:
http://blogs.adobe.com/indesigndocs/2012/03/guidelines-for-creating-folios-for-ipad-3.html

Video output size to use for a (horizontal) Lower Third.

Hi. I would like to know what the video output size to use for a (horizontal) Lower Third. I will be very grateful for your help. Thanx in advance. Sam.

Make it the same horizontal & vertical size as your video. The upper 2/3 needs to be transparent.

Creating fly-out menus for website in InDesign CS5

Hi all, I've just upgraded to CS5, and am looking into the new release of InDesign CS5. In the past, I had created websites in MS Publisher, and then exported the publication as website as html. I then uploaded the resulting HTML to my website using Cute FTP.
I dabbled around with Adobe Contribute, and still found it rather restrictive, as I could not create coloured text boxes, text frames, roll-over buttons and etc.
Hoping that I'll have better luck with InDesign CS5. I'm intending to create my website from scratch, and when finished, hope I can export the publication in InDesign as HTML.
Just wondering if there is a feature in InDesign CS5 that can create drop down or fly-out menus for a website?
Thanks

It might be easier to invest in something like Quite Imposing, an impostion plugin for Acrobat. It's far less expensive than a full-blown professional imposition program and if you need to impose a lot of PDFs, it will pay for itself quickly.

Error in RFC Adapter PI 7.10 maximum size of requests for one LUW

Hello all,
I have a big issue on our Development - SAP PI 7.10 System. If I try to push a RFC from a Client System
I get follow error messagei in the Runtime Workbench (RWB) back:
processing error to be caused by: com.sap.aii.adapter.rfc.core.server.RfcServerException: maximum size of requests for one LUW has been reached (1). handling of request for tRFC (TID: 0AA001B8712C49D35D4D06C2) not possible (server: RfcServer[PKG_R3_D07_600_RFC_SND]1)
But I don't know why. I checked follow OSS Notes:
730870 and 774705 w/o success. It will be nice somebody can help me.
Thanks
S. Kohler
P.S. We have the same scenario in our Quality SAP XI System and there works. I couldn't find any
differences between the Adapters. Is there a problem with the parameters ????

Hello Tarang Shah,
okay. Here again ( I thought I mentioned above):
in Q50 (SAP PI 7.10 System) we create a RFC Server with the program ID RFC_Q50.
in D64 (SAP PI 7.10 System) we vreate a RFC Server with the program ID RFC_D64
in D07 (SAP R/3 4.7 x110) we create a RFC Connection to D64 with the program ID RFC_D64.
The testconnection works well. I see in our Dev. SAP PI System (D64) that the connection works.
The problem is here, if you start in the application (System D07) the push, you get the error :
maximum size of requests for one LUW has been reac hed (1). handling of re
in Q50 (SAP R/3 4.7 x110) we create a RFC Connection to Q50 with the program ID RFC_Q50.
The testconnection in Q17 works well. Also the push from the application (System Q17.)
This means, the functionallity is okay on both sides (Q17 and D07) only the application sending
process from D07 makes trouble ( you see in Transaction SM 58 on Client Site, the error as I mentiond above and in SAP PI side.) It seems that SAP PI could't accept more as one LUWs
in the same time. Q50 (Q- System) accepted.
So, this is the reason in my point of view, that the problem isn't the connection, seems more
an paramter problem in D64 side. But I don't know which parameters. I checked the OSS Note 730870 and 774705 w/o success.
Thanks
S. Kohler

SIze of Menus for BluRay

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for