portrait and landscape

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ciar?n
  • Start date Start date
C

Ciar?n

I want to make a pwerpoint presentation which contains both portrait
and landscape in the same ppt file, and which has different
backgrounds.
How can this be done?
 
You CAN have different slide designs in PowerPoint 2002 or 2003, but not in
previous versions (2000 or 97). You CAN'T have both landscape and portrait
orientations in the same file! However, there are workarounds (linking
presentations together). Check out the following:

http://www.rdpslides.com/pptfaq/FAQ00042.htm
 
I don't understand this, though. See, the screen height is the same no
matter what orientation the slide is. So how does changing from portrait to
landscape help for onscreen shows? Unless you're showing on a blank wall or
something, the portrait slide would bleed over the top and bottom of the
screen...

--
Echo [MS PPT MVP]

Christopher said:
Boy, that's just very silly.. I can think of at least one instance
Click to expand...
where an onscreen presentation requires (demands) both landscape and
portrait slide types -- when tabular data is involved. Some data just
doesn't 'present' well in portrait format (and no, I'd rather not swap row
for column just to make the data fit the program), whereas some photos and
diagrams are better suited to portrait.
 
[CRITICAL UPDATE - Anyone using Office 2003 should install the critical
update as soon as possible. From PowerPoint, choose "Help -> Check for
Updates".]

Hello,

PowerPoint does not have the specific capability that you are looking for
although there are a few different workarounds depending on what is most
important (easy printing <single file>, or on-screen slide show
appearance). There's an online help topic that describes one workaround:

http://office.microsoft.com/assistance/preview.aspx?AssetID=HP051949451033

This is one of those requested capabilities that has been difficult to
justify because we haven't received enough (or compelling) reasons for the
on-screen slide show scenario. Basically, we haven't received good
arguments as to why displaying a portrait slide on a landscape
display/projector is any better than simply placing your "portrait" content
into a landscape slide (retaining the aspect ratio of the content while
sizing it so that it touches the bottom and top of the slide) and then
displaying the landscape slide on a landscape display/projector. They look
the same. Perhaps a better recommendation in this scenario is NOT to allow
mixed portrait/landscape slides in the same presentation but, INSTEAD,
provide better slide show tools for viewing portrait content in slide show
(scrolling, magnify, etc.) at it's original size instead of shrunk down to
fit the slide area?

However, we have received some good justifications for combining mixed
landscape and portrait slides in presentations intended primarily for
printing (since printers have the capability to rotate the output on a
per-page basis), but as always, more feedback and justification in
customers own words would really help us to understand under which
scenarios (print, display, etc.) you are looking for support for mixed
orientation slides and what your expectations are of the experience when
showing or printing these types of presentations (does it have to be a
single presentation, or will multiple presentations with improved
presentation "chaining" features be sufficient, what else?)

If you (or anyone else reading this message) think that PowerPoint should
provide support for mixed orientation slides in same presentation
(onscreen? print? both?), or features for better handling of naturally
"portrait" content in a landscape slide show, or better features for
chaining multiple presentations together (regardless of each presentations
orientation), don't forget to send your feedback (in YOUR OWN WORDS,
please) to Microsoft at:

http://register.microsoft.com/mswish/suggestion.asp

As with all product suggestions, it's important that you not just state
your wish but also WHY it is important to you that your product suggestion
be implemented by Microsoft. Microsoft receives thousands of product
suggestions every day and we read each one but, in any given product
development cycle, there are only sufficient resources to address the ones
that are most important to our customers so take the extra time to state
your case as clearly and completely as possible.

IMPORTANT: Each submission should be a single suggestion (not a list of
suggestions).

John Langhans
Microsoft Corporation
Supportability Program Manager
Microsoft Office PowerPoint for Windows
Microsoft Office Picture Manager for Windows

For FAQ's, highlights and top issues, visit the Microsoft PowerPoint
support center at: http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=ppt
Search the Microsoft Knowledge Base at:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?pr=kbhowto

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of any included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm
 
But if the usable space remains 1024 pixels across and 768 pixels down, for
example, what do you really gain? Unless you tip the monitor on it's side,
how does portrait mode give you more than 768 pixels to use? To me it only
makes sense if you're only printing the slides and not displaying them on a
screen.
--
Sonia, MS PowerPoint MVP Team
Autorun CD software, templates, and tutorials
http://www.soniacoleman.com/

Christopher said:
Boy, that's just very silly.. I can think of at least one instance
Click to expand...
where an onscreen presentation requires (demands) both landscape and
portrait slide types -- when tabular data is involved. Some data just
doesn't 'present' well in portrait format (and no, I'd rather not swap row
for column just to make the data fit the program), whereas some photos and
diagrams are better suited to portrait.
 
Unless you tip the monitor on it's side,

We're playing with one of these right now, an LCD panel that can spin into
portrait mode. It's pretty cool for doing page layout. I'm not so sure what
else it's good for. :-)

-John O
 
But if the usable space remains 1024 pixels across and 768 pixels down, for
example, what do you really gain? Unless you tip the monitor on it's side,
how does portrait mode give you more than 768 pixels to use? To me it only
makes sense if you're only printing the slides and not displaying them on a
screen.
Click to expand...

Brian's working on an add-in that'll detect orientation and trigger an external
gyroscopically controlled motor driven screen flipper when it detects a slide
that's at 90 degrees from the orientation of the bulk of the presentation.

It works pretty well but there are still a few kinks to work out of the
auto-seatflipping routines. It's hard to ensure that users fasten their
seatbelts before the presentation starts and they keep falling out.

He says it's almost there but he can't find anybody willing to test it.
Bruises, y'know.
 
ROFL! Virtual Brianization!

Steve Rindsberg said:
Brian's working on an add-in that'll detect orientation and trigger an external
gyroscopically controlled motor driven screen flipper when it detects a slide
that's at 90 degrees from the orientation of the bulk of the presentation.

It works pretty well but there are still a few kinks to work out of the
auto-seatflipping routines. It's hard to ensure that users fasten their
seatbelts before the presentation starts and they keep falling out.

He says it's almost there but he can't find anybody willing to test it.
Bruises, y'know.
Click to expand...
 
It works pretty well but there are still a few kinks to work out of the
auto-seatflipping routines. It's hard to ensure that users fasten their
seatbelts before the presentation starts and they keep falling out.

He says it's almost there but he can't find anybody willing to test it.
Bruises, y'know.
Click to expand...

Might want to hook up with the folks who build roller coasters.

Kinda gives new meaning to the common presentation opening phrase "hang on,
it's going to be a bumpy ride."

-John O
 
Sounds like someone needs "Sensitivity Training"! <g>
Click to expand...

They're too sensitive as it is. Tougher testers, that's what we need. These
bruise too easily by far.
 
Might want to hook up with the folks who build roller coasters.

Good thought. While Brian's working on the mechanical aspects, I've been
concentrating on the Virtual Surreality end of things.

Goes a long way to explaining most of my posts, eh?
 
Back
Top