Bowing to all those who know more on this subject than me.
Thinking about buying latest version of PI, this would be used mainly to print off photos ( at the moment only 3.2megapixels..and uses images from my camcorder/2.3megapixals ) that i would use to make dvd covers for my films/old cine vhs footage converted etc etc
So, the question is, is PI up to the job? In the past downloaded trial of a handful of photocollege type programs, inlcuding PI ( trial was up by the time i came to actually print the image i wanted! ). I was happy(ish) with the quality of print and the covers i made using these programs, however, couldnt fail to notice that some of the pictures close up werent exaclty pin sharp..now this isnt the printers fault as ive printeed out other documents with word graphs etc..but certainly even slightly enlarging a picture would result in not really a crystal clear image...
So, tell me..if i take a still from my camcorder footage, import it into PI, add the odd effect etc...how good will the result be...same question applies to taking a picture from either a 3.2megapixal camera or perhaps a 5megapixal camera? a difference in output quality?
Please enlighten me.
thanks
purchasing Photoimpact for dvd covers?
-
heinz-oz
I use PI to make collages of my photos from a 4 MP Canon S45 PowerShot and an EOS 350D DSLR 8 MP from Canon. These are printed on a Canon iP5000 bubble jet printer on A4 glossy photopaper with excellent results.
I also print directly to printable CD/DVD media with images prepared in PI.
Having said all that, whether or not a reduced/enlarged image looks still ok depends entirely on your ability to select the right settings and follow the correct workflow. The media (paper) used for the printing, the printer and print driver settings, the photo resolution to start with and the quality of the lens on the camera all have a larger bearing on the quality you get also.
Someone who doesn't know nothing can spoil a perfectly good digital image with any image editing program in 2 seconds flat.
Most then blame the editing program
I also print directly to printable CD/DVD media with images prepared in PI.
Having said all that, whether or not a reduced/enlarged image looks still ok depends entirely on your ability to select the right settings and follow the correct workflow. The media (paper) used for the printing, the printer and print driver settings, the photo resolution to start with and the quality of the lens on the camera all have a larger bearing on the quality you get also.
Someone who doesn't know nothing can spoil a perfectly good digital image with any image editing program in 2 seconds flat.
Most then blame the editing program
-
skier-hughes
- Microsoft MVP
- Posts: 2659
- Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 10:09 am
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- motherboard: gigabyte
- processor: Intel core 2 6420 2.13GHz
- ram: 4GB
- Video Card: NVidia GForce 8500GT
- sound_card: onboard
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 36GB 2TB
- Location: UK
A cheap 10mp camera may only produce the same quality image as a good 3mp camera, as it's not just the mp that makes the difference it is the imaging sensor, ccd/cmos and the lens.
Not too mention how well you focus, same as video manual focus is best and you need to do it right.
Then the lighting/subject etc all make a difference.
In my opinion don't expect a good still image from a camcorder, but a semi decent image is better than none in most cases.
Never work on a picture in jpeg mode, save it to tiff and then edit, as each time you save a jpeg you will compress it, resulting in poorer quality.
Depending on the quality of the pciture and what took it, along with the mp, a picture can only be blown up to it's natural size, once you go past this you will introduce pixelation and a poor image.
A camcorder image from video is limited in size to the video standard, so SD will be 720x576, not good for printing in a large size.
As to whether PI can make good quality dvd case inserts or not, well really that's down to the artisitc side of your nature, if you can think of a good design, it should enable you to do it.
Mostly items for you to think about rather than direct answers, but it should help.
Not too mention how well you focus, same as video manual focus is best and you need to do it right.
Then the lighting/subject etc all make a difference.
In my opinion don't expect a good still image from a camcorder, but a semi decent image is better than none in most cases.
Never work on a picture in jpeg mode, save it to tiff and then edit, as each time you save a jpeg you will compress it, resulting in poorer quality.
Depending on the quality of the pciture and what took it, along with the mp, a picture can only be blown up to it's natural size, once you go past this you will introduce pixelation and a poor image.
A camcorder image from video is limited in size to the video standard, so SD will be 720x576, not good for printing in a large size.
As to whether PI can make good quality dvd case inserts or not, well really that's down to the artisitc side of your nature, if you can think of a good design, it should enable you to do it.
Mostly items for you to think about rather than direct answers, but it should help.
-
heinz-oz
And, to add to the previous posters comments, in PI you don't need to save to another image format like Tiff etc. because you can stick with Ulead's native UFO format. This format can even be inserted into video projects with the latest versions of MSP and VS.
Saving again and again to a compressed format like jpeg will deteriorate the image quality very quickly.
Any digital image does not have a size as such, it only has an aspect ratio which defines how the long side compares to the short side.
For printing you need to define the printer resolution in dpi (dots per inch). You should aim at a min. of 180 dpi for good quality prints. I usually size my images for A4 size (that's what I print on) at 300 dpi. Trying to do that from a 2 MP image would be stretching it a bit because the image would have to be enlarged to do that. Enlarging an image can only be done by adding new pixels to the image. The content of these new pixels needs to be guessed by the image editing program. This will result in deterioration because the new pixels can only be approximated by the program. That will lose clarity.
Best practise, but rarely possible for an amateur, is to shoot to the resolution you need for your purpose. In other words, shoot high resolution for large size printing and low resolution for use with video.
A good approximation to guess the print size of any given digital image is to devide the vertical and horizontal pixel dimension by 180 (dpi). If that is still larger in inch x inch than what you need, increase the dpi to get to the size you want. If it is smaller than what you want, the image needs to be enlarged with the expected effects listed earlier.
Incidentally, to resize an image to a smaller size (px * px) has similar implications since the program needs to discard picture elements (px). The adjoining , remaining pixels are approximated to look like what the program guessed these should look like. To get a smaller prin size on paper, just increase the dpi. It will not adversely effect the image since your printer only packs the pixels closer together. Once you exceed the max printer resolution though, that won't work too good either.
The dpi of an image is totally irrelevant while it is displayed on the monitor. It only has a bearing on the printed image.
Saving again and again to a compressed format like jpeg will deteriorate the image quality very quickly.
Any digital image does not have a size as such, it only has an aspect ratio which defines how the long side compares to the short side.
For printing you need to define the printer resolution in dpi (dots per inch). You should aim at a min. of 180 dpi for good quality prints. I usually size my images for A4 size (that's what I print on) at 300 dpi. Trying to do that from a 2 MP image would be stretching it a bit because the image would have to be enlarged to do that. Enlarging an image can only be done by adding new pixels to the image. The content of these new pixels needs to be guessed by the image editing program. This will result in deterioration because the new pixels can only be approximated by the program. That will lose clarity.
Best practise, but rarely possible for an amateur, is to shoot to the resolution you need for your purpose. In other words, shoot high resolution for large size printing and low resolution for use with video.
A good approximation to guess the print size of any given digital image is to devide the vertical and horizontal pixel dimension by 180 (dpi). If that is still larger in inch x inch than what you need, increase the dpi to get to the size you want. If it is smaller than what you want, the image needs to be enlarged with the expected effects listed earlier.
Incidentally, to resize an image to a smaller size (px * px) has similar implications since the program needs to discard picture elements (px). The adjoining , remaining pixels are approximated to look like what the program guessed these should look like. To get a smaller prin size on paper, just increase the dpi. It will not adversely effect the image since your printer only packs the pixels closer together. Once you exceed the max printer resolution though, that won't work too good either.
The dpi of an image is totally irrelevant while it is displayed on the monitor. It only has a bearing on the printed image.
-
heinz-oz
Once bought and installed, I would also recommend to head over to this site http://www.pircnet.com/ and enroll for the free Beginners Workshop. You will never look back. I did, even though I was not a novice at the time. I quickly realised how little I did know.
The beginners Workshop will assign a mentor to you who will guide you through the whole thing and assess your progress.
PS: You can also download the trial and get cracking already.
The beginners Workshop will assign a mentor to you who will guide you through the whole thing and assess your progress.
PS: You can also download the trial and get cracking already.