Utilising most resolution of scanned photos

[Peem]

Any suggestions for retaining more of the resolution inherent in photo or scan imported into a video, to increase the sharpness when panning or zooming across it? eg - original photo of a map may be 8Mpix. Would it help to make a hi def clip of the zoom to insert in an SD project?

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi

There was an issue regarding Pan & Zoom, more apparent when viewing maps.
The “Apply Anti Flickering Filter on Photos” caused some reduction in quality.
Un-checking this option Preferences-Edit tab did improve the quality.

The affect was more noticeable in later versions of Video Studio.

Scanning and Image Size

Unfortunately scanning paper can have poor results, depending on the quality of the paper, the scanner can pick up the grain, which will reduce the quality.
If you find this to be a problem, try taking a photo rather than scanning.

The minimum Image size needs to be the same as the video frame size.
As you are intending to use Pan & Zoom you really need to increase this size.

SD projects 16:9 Pal has a 1024 x 576 frame size.
To apply pan and zoom increase images to 2048 x 1152 as a minimum.

[Peem]

Thanks Andrew
Most photos I take are about 8Mpix, which is a few times bigger than 2048x1152. Are they retained at their original size when included, or converted to the project dimensions of 1024x576, which would mean that zooming might produce an image with maybe less than a quarter of the pixels? If the latter, that was my reason for considering making a HD clip of the pan & zoom, then importing that - more pixels to start with.

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi

The sizes 2048 x 1152 were the minimum I would use for widescreen, they will fill the screen with no borders.
By all means use your original 8 Mb images.

Creating a HD video file of the pan and zoom, sorry I had missed the point here,
Yes I think it may be beneficial.
I have not tried this but would be interested in the results.

You could render the image to a HD video, then apply “pan & zoom filter”
Although I don’t know which option would create the best results.

When rendering to SD, the video frame size is 720 x 576 irrespective of whether you are using 4:3 or 16:9.
So image pixels are greatly reduced when creating the video. Generally there’s no problem, till we zoom – in.

[Peem]

Thanks again Trevor,
I suppose I was really wondering if anyone knew of a workaround to counter the loss of resolution when zooming. There is no point in reinventing the wheel. I will have a play to see if HD makes a difference. Regards, Peter

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi

Did you notice any difference when deselecting the filter

Quote----The “Apply Anti Flickering Filter on Photos” caused some reduction in quality.
Un-checking this option Preferences-Edit tab did improve the quality.

[Peem]

Trevor,
In this instance I did not notice any difference when deselecting the antiflick filter nor when I saved any HD clips for PC. However, I was zoomed in on the photo to a point where the image would have been about the same res as as a SD clip. Will try again at less zoom in some other project. It might be simpler to pan the camera across the map!
Thanks, Peter.

[Puck19]

I ran into the same thing and was not happy with zooming whether on my 6MP or 18MP images. Like you, zomming even to a point were the resolution would still be an HD frame or greater resulted in blur and significant loss of quality. I found the best way was to use Microsoft PhotoStory 3. Its a free download for Windows users and can be found at http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/usin ... fault.mspx.

It is unfortunately 4:3 oriented but you work around this by distorting your picture width by about .75. A good explanation can be found at http://www.papajohn.org/PS3-ImportPix.html. I also like to use a custom profile so that I can export to HD. See http://www.papajohn.org/PS3-Saving.html for hints om this. Compare the results and I think you will see quite a difference between the output of VS and PhotoStory3. Save to WMV or AVI then bring into your VS project as a clip.

[esclava]

Hello, I have had this question for a long time... I think it relates to this thread. Hope I don't get in trouble

Is there a "best" file type to use for an image in VideoStudio? is 32-bit .bmp better than high res .jpg or .png? I have been struggling with this for a long time. I have never really noticed much of a difference. Thanks for posting about the anti-flicker setting. I believe it helped a little. I am working on a project for my job that has many detailed charts and they always seem to come out blurry if I do a Share --> Create Disc thing. And not just blurry: the quality is actually hideous!! The super hi-qual .mpeg2 render comes out well with compression raised, but not a DVD Folder burn.... I am ultimately going to have to put my project on a DVD, so I needed to finally address this topic!

So does anyone have suggestions for making projects with image graphics that need to be readable, like charts?? I know I have seen people do this all over the internet. Are they using a different piece of software? I am pretty confident that UVS can handle it! But I seem to have a problem when I bring in an image file. If I don't even pan or zoom it becomes choppy and blurry. I DID try the suggestions I found in another thread on how to adjust the compression settings. I raised them to 100. FYI: I am working with an HD clip with 1440x1080 res. Any suggestions for how to keep quality in check would be appreciated. What resolution should I start with for a still-frame chart? I want the chart to fill the whole screen -- no borders.

Wow! That's a lot. I hope someone can help me! I hope I gave enough information to give you a lead. Thanks in advance!

~Esclava

[Peem]

Thanks Puck,
I will try it soon.
Peter

[Trevor Andrew]

Hi esclava

I think we are all aware of the quality issues when using images in video studio.
I generally use normal images , no charts sometimes maybe a map.

I don’t think anybody has tested image quality, well not to come to a positive conclusion.

The quality of images relies on the resolution, the more pixels the better the quality.
So a camera creating a 12 MB image 4000 x 3000 will effectively be better quality than a 2MB camera 1200 x 900.at least it will print out on larger paper.

Unfortunately video sizes are much smaller than images, the image has to be downsized.
Standard Pal video is 720 x 567, for widescreen 1024 x 576.

Even the 2MB image is better/bigger, that too will be downsized to fit the video frame when creating a DVD MPEG2 file.

Creating High Definition video should improve things as the frame size can be 1920 x 1080

Fit to screen…………The actual size of the image should use the same aspect ratio as the video.
If widescreen then 16:9 ratio image will fill the screen.
A 1920 x 1080px image would do nicely, the more pixels the better but it’s the shape that’s important.

Things to try………….
I had thought of creating a HD video of the image then add this to the project as a video rather than an image.
Take further photos of the chart, switching between photos rather than using Pan & Zoom.

Overscan -- TV safe areaSome of the video frame when viewing on TV is lost around the edges.
If you crop your chart image to the edges you will lose some detail. Not good if you cannot see the X and Y axis.
Overscan can be as much as 15%
I tend to batch convert my images to include a 10% border, most of the border is lost due to overscan, leaving my image in full view.