Help Inserting Photos into video project

Mark Powell · Post by **Mark Powell** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:28 am

I am trying to put a JPG of a map into one of my video projects. The original is a good quality 5 Mpix. I have tried loading both JPEG and bitmap original. When it is inserted in the time line and selected it is very clear. However once you view as playback in either "project" or "Clip" all the detail is lost and it appears to blur or pixilate. This does not occur on a blow up of the same photo so possiblly the find detail is causing it grief. I have tried put the picture in both the top video line and the second line of the time line as suggested but had no luck. Can any body tell me how to insert a high res photo into the video project.

THoff · Post by **THoff** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:10 am

Just ignore the output of the Preview window, it is not very indicative of the final results.

More more information, search the forums or read any of the threads numerous where this has already been covered in detail.

Mark Powell · Post by **Mark Powell** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:20 am

Thanks THoff. I have burned the project to DVD and see the same effect. Can you offer any suggestions as to where to start looking for the threads etc

THoff · Post by **THoff** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:14 am

OK, here goes:

1. Set the resampling quality to BEST in the Preferences.

2. Use the Keep Aspect Ratio when inserting pictures.

3. Don't use the existing DVD templates. Use custom settings with a CBR bitrate of 8000Kbps, a Quality setting of 100%, and frame-based output.

4. Consider applying a slight Gaussian blur to images to soften them.

5. Apply the Anti-flicker filter.

6. Don't judge the results by the Preview window, use Windows Media Player to play the rendered file / play the DVD instead. Preferably play the disk on a standalone player connected to a TV.

If none of that helps, describe the symptoms and your workflow in detail.

FYI, there is a sample UVS project on my website that uses still images to create a pseudo-slideshow. The MPEG file that is downloadable from that page is NTSC DVD compliant and plays flawlessly.

http://www.misterfrag.com/stills.htm

thecoalman · Post by **thecoalman** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:32 am

I'm assuming your having trouble with the letters. A map is going to very hard to get legible unless you zoom quite a bit as you have stated. You have to remember TV resolution is not that much, and your dealing with round "pixels" as opposed to the square pixels of a monitor which further reduces the clarity. I know even with a direct connection to a TV the start button on windows is hardly legible and if I remeber correctly that was at 800x600. Even text created on DVD menus becomes hard to read after a certain point, you have a compound issue because it's not editable text but an image.

You could always edit your current map or make the map yourself..... I have a few suggestions if your interested but there a little detailed so I won't go into unless your interested.

randazzo · Post by **randazzo** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:36 am

The suggestions from THoff are valid. Follow them.

My pictures benefit a lot from the slight Gaussian blur (1 pixel). Keeps the flickering away. This can best be done on all the jpg's in your photo editor (not in your video-editing).

Good luck.

Jean-Pierre

thecoalman · Post by **thecoalman** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:02 am

Yes they are very valid for working with images and video in general and would be the same thing I would suggest. I was just trying to make the point that you can only go so small before it becomes ilegible particularly if your working off an image.

randazzo · Post by **randazzo** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 10:12 am

Hello Thecoalman,

I didn't intend to devaluate your point. It's just that I have good experience with the Guassian blur for the jpeg's

Jean-Pierre

Mark Powell · Post by **Mark Powell** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 4:04 am

Thanks for all the reply info. I tried all of the suggestions but to no avail. The effect is still there even when burned to DVD, it appears the same as in the project review window. I could not find any anti flicker filter though. I will take new pictures this week end of the maps at different zoom settings to determine if it is the size of the detail that is causing the problem. As I indicated, if the clip is selected on the time line it looks fine however as soon as the picture is played it seems to pixilate, a little like the contrast is wound out to max. Is there a preference for inserting JPEG or Bitmap immages as it doesn't appear to be any different, and is it better to insert immages on the top line or the second line of the time line? I will let you know if I have any success.

thecoalman · Post by **thecoalman** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:14 am

Here's a suggestion for a quick fix, create larger names. Use a font such as Arial in bold with a soft edge. Something like this, you could even make the nametag with a arrow. Use the nametag to hide the current name.... beside it will look better.

arkclk · Post by **arkclk** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:04 pm

I'm running into a similar problem, have searched this board, and tried many things. I cannot find the Anti flicker filter in VS6. Was it included in this version and if so, where can I turn this on.

Thanks
Andy

thecoalman · Post by **thecoalman** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:12 pm

arkclk wrote:I'm running into a similar problem, have searched this board, and tried many things. I cannot find the Anti flicker filter in VS6. Was it included in this version and if so, where can I turn this on.

Thanks
Andy

I'm guessing...but all that anti flicker function does is blur the image a little. My reasoning is that it seems the larger the image is the more likely that the flicker will be present after applying it. My guess is that the amount of blur it applys is the same regardless of image size which is why it doesn't work well on larger images.

Your best bet is to apply a blur in an image editing app, I'd answer your question but I don't know where it's located if at all.

Mark Powell · Post by **Mark Powell** » Mon May 09, 2005 4:59 am

Apologies for the delay in getting back to you. It appears, as possibly expected, that it is the fine detail of the map which is causing the problem. I have scanned the map and stitched it together which improved the product slightly but the detail is still not very legible. I have opted to utilise smaller portions of the map which I have zoomed in on reducing the amount of fine detail which has produced some very acceptable results using the wipe effect to trace the path. Thanks for all the help and suggestions.

woxof · Post by **woxof** » Tue May 10, 2005 5:21 am

Nice presentation on the slide show. Thanks. I think I may need this info in the future.
Sean

Alludo USER to USER Web Board