best quality

garciazopfi · Post by **garciazopfi** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 7:34 pm

Hello to everybody, I'm trying to make a clip with some pictures a have, but when I watch the results, pictures are not clear anymore.
What settings do I have to do or what kink of pictures do I have to use:JPG. TIFF PNG or BMP?
Please HELP I have no solution, my pictures always loose quality

Thanks for helping me. Susi.

DVDDoug · Post by **DVDDoug** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:10 pm

You are always going to loose some quality.

Standard NTSC resolution is 720x480. That's the upper resolution limit.

Digital still-images use square pixels. Video uses rectangular pixels. (A 720x480 image with square pixels does not 'work out' to fit a 4x3 or 16x9 TV screen.) Pixels must be added or subtracted to keep the correct proportions.

Video colors are also generated differently on video, so the colors usually don't exactly match the still image either.

Also, it seems to me that we are more tolerant with moving video than we are with stills... I'm not sure about that, but stills on a TV usually don't seem as clear as the video.

You are probably better-off with a high resolution BMP, since it's not compressed. But, I often use JPEG and I find it acceptable. (I've never made a slide show, I'm just using the stills for menu backgrounds and occasional "special effects".)

Black Lab · Post by **Black Lab** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:35 pm

I have never done anything special to my stills (i.e. resize, crop, etc.) as some advise. I just drop them into my timeline (either main or overlay) and usually have to choose Fit to Project Size. I make sure Perform Non-Square Pixel Rendering is checked. I think they look fine.

Post by **Ken Berry** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 8:51 pm

Ditto. In fact I am often bemused, and sometimes amused, by the contortions some people apparently have to go through to get their still images looking good in a slideshow. Mine come out crisp and clear when I drop them in as they are.

heinz-oz · Post by **heinz-oz** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:09 pm

Hi Ken and Jeff,

I do have to go through great lengths to get my images to look clear. They do look very good if I resize (crop/resize) the images to a 4:3 ratio like 1200 x 900 px. Otherwise they look awful.

What are the pixel dimensions of your images? Mine ar from an 8 MP digital SLR and measure 3546 x 2304 px. If I leave the reduction to 720 x 576 (PAL video) to MSP, the results are horrible. Have not tried to use them with VS because I have not used VS since version 5 and only now started to look at VS10+.

railroadguy · Post by **railroadguy** » Thu Feb 08, 2007 11:44 pm

DVDDoug wrote: You are probably better-off with a high resolution BMP, since it's not compressed. But, I often use JPEG and I find it acceptable. (I've never made a slide show, I'm just using the stills for menu backgrounds and occasional "special effects".)

In the Time Line of Trains I did, and announced in the Video section, used JPG images and the results on the DVD version are outstanding. These were all 800 x 600 or 600 x 800 in size. I did another video called Popcorn, also in the Video section, where I tried some new scans in the 2400 pixel size. Things came to very BIG slow down. No reason the use that size image because you are making VS resize these on the fly. BMP's will work but their file size vs the quality of a good JPG would not make it worth the time IMHO.

Post by **Ken Berry** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:29 am

Heinz: I mostly use photos which are 1536 x 1034 or 1280 x 960 straight from the camera (now a Canon Rebel 300; previously a Fujifilm S5600).

As I say, I simply use them straight and they look crisp and clear. I use them this way in VS10, though had difficulties with previous versions. While I can make a slideshow now using VS10, my preference is still to prepare my slideshows in MF5+. I even did one recently for my sister, using MF5 on my old Dell laptop and photos straight from her Canon Powershot something or other (can't recall the number -- think it might have been a 540). Again, no fiddling with photos in any way. And the resulting slideshow on disc was crisp and clear as it always is.

daniel · Post by **daniel** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 1:00 pm

I use scanned 100% quality JPG photos that range in the 2700*1800 to 3600*2400 area after cropping unnecessary edges .
Never resized them; never found them unsharp or otherwise unpleasant.

Sometimes I insert smaller scan or Web pictures that are smaller or larger (640x480 to anything) and never saw a difference.

This in PAL 4:3 output. Non-square, fit size to project. Interlaced.
I use VS because I want to add effects/titles/filters/distortions etc.

Heinz-Oz: I would thank you to believe that I'm _not_ systematically stating the opposite of what you write. It just happens so; I share my experience, but the last times I admit it always differs with yours.

heinz-oz · Post by **heinz-oz** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 2:07 pm

daniel
Scans are different from digital images. As long as it works for you, no problem. Doesn't work for me though

Maybe I'm just too fussy

@Ken Berry
As I said

Yours are close to what I resize mine to, no reason to be different. Then again, I use MSP not VS, not that this should make any difference.

daniel · Post by **daniel** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:09 pm

heinz-oz wrote:daniel
Scans are different from digital images. As long as it works for you, no problem. Doesn't work for me though :roll:

Well maybe you have something here; digital, especially when JPGed have quite sharp contour, while scans from analog (silver oxide) media is very typically soft, you could even say blurry, both due to the grain of the film and the quality of the optics.

Didn't we have someone here post that his/her problems vanished with a touch of softening filter ? You maybe Heinz?

railroadguy · Post by **railroadguy** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:17 pm

daniel wrote:I use scanned 100% quality JPG photos that range in the 2700*1800 to 3600*2400 area after cropping unnecessary edges .
Never resized them; never found them unsharp or otherwise unpleasant.

You don't, someone else may see a difference. This is no different then people who think they are Webmasters placing 2700x1800 size JPG on there page but then using HTML tell the browser to really display the image at 800x600 in size. What these idiots don't understand is that they are now forcing this very large file which the client has to download before the rest of the page and then make the browser try and render this image the fly into a smaller image. Photoshop or any image program does a much better job at resampling an image then a browser does.

You are asking VS to do the same thing. Take my 2700x1800 and stuff it to fit the NTSC or PAL size. There will be quality loss. Can YOU see it, maybe not, could you see it if you did it both ways and went to HD, I bet you could.

railroadguy · Post by **railroadguy** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:21 pm

heinz-oz wrote:daniel
Scans are different from digital images.

What? Please explain how "Scans are different from digital images".

Other then the encoded information a camera placed into the file, a digital image from a camera is no different then a digital image from my 2700 dpi film scanner. It's a digital TIF or JPG or how ever you processed it.

daniel · Post by **daniel** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 4:54 pm

railroadguy wrote: Photoshop or any image program does a much better job at resampling an image then a browser does.

You are asking VS to do the same thing. Take my 2700x1800 and stuff it to fit the NTSC or PAL size.

Not only resize it: apply a specific color gamut and values range, specific either to NTSC or to PAL according to my project settings, then apply a filter/color or brightness correction, add a special effect then add text and an overlay THEN encode the result to JPG (AVI) or MPG.

We could also add that for those who target TVs and not PC viewing, the poor color space and gamut of SDTV hides a lot of things.
I bet most of the people would accept viewing a slide show on VHS...

I completely agree that HD with a real color range and separated signals
not talking about the digital handling and higher resolution, then the problem will be different.

At that moment I'll just reload my VSP, change the project settings and re-render the MPG, no need to reprocess the originals to a different size.

Vicki · Post by **Vicki** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 5:49 pm

I have had good results by resizing in Photoshop to 300 dpi and a multiplier of the screen size. I like the stills to be a larger than project screen size, ie, 1440, 2160, etc., especially if you do any zoom and panning. They came out much better than a straight resizing with low resolution. Also, in VS10, when you hit the customize button, even if you don't do any panning, it will zoom/crop the photo to the right dimensions, without warping the proportion. (not counting that square/rect pixel issue.)

Also, while in PhotoShop, you can do some brightness and color corrections, cropping, etc. before saving them to the folder you will be using for your video project. I also rename my stills in chronological order for slide and video shows so that I'm not fumbling around later.

I've used digital direct from the camera and also scanned images, both in jpeg. The digital images from the camera are always better quality and sharper. However, content rules.

BTW, I am editing and viewing in standard, not HD, although it is a 54" TV (hubby's little housewarming gift to himself).

Good luck, best wishes on your project.

heinz-oz · Post by **heinz-oz** » Fri Feb 09, 2007 11:54 pm

I'm afraid you missed something

...resizing in Photoshop to 300 dpi

dpi has no bearing on a digital image at all, it will look the same at 2 dpi as it does at 3000 dpi. Dpi only apply to printing images.

@daniel

Didn't we have someone here post that his/her problems vanished with a touch of softening filter ? You maybe Heinz?

That was in relation to a completely different problem, jittery still images with fine detail and/or horizontal lines.