Pan & Zoom and image resolution

[Rawcoll]

I have a still image of a map and I should like to zoom in on the location of interest. However, when I try this with Pan & Zoom I find that the resultant image is unreadable, the resolution being so poor, despite the original image being 9600 x 5400 pixels in size. To be honest, even viewing original image at full screen with VideoStudio it is pretty fuzzy. Note that the original image when viewed in a normal viewer is perfectly sharp and clear, even zoomed in. I wondered if this was because I am using proxy editing, but it seems that even the rendered file is no better.

Am I doing something wrong, or is this 'just the way it is'?

Ian
(VideoStudio v15.1.0.34)

[lata]

Hi Ian

Welcome to the forums

The problem with quality when zooming into a map has been raised before.
You may find the post if you do a search of the forum.

However it was found that by disabling Apply Anti Flickering Filter 0n Photos (F6 Preferences-edit tab) that the quality improved.
The problem was more noticeable when viewing the text on the map.

In addition editing the project properties to use a higher frame size should improve the quality when viewing the project, this will not affect the rendered quality.
The quality when viewing the project may not be as good as the final output file
If you render the image to a video file, Share Create Video File, which option would you choose and how good is the quality of the video file.?

I guess i am asking what you are intending to make?

[Rawcoll]

Hi Trevor

Thanks for your welcome and response. I am new to the world of video editing, so I'm only slowly getting to grips with the finer points.

The video test file I created was a 720 wmv. However, looking further at the problem it seems that the sort of image quality I am getting after zooming sort of implies that the zooming is carried out on a 720 wide image, and not on the original image. Would that be correct? I had hoped that the program would operate on the original file. Certainly, if I create a zoom on the original image in my still image editing program, and then re-size to 720 wide, the result is more than adequate, but if I convert the original image to 720 wide, zoom in, and re-size the result to 720 wide the result is dreadful and fairly similar to what I am getting with VS. Presumably, the improvement I'm likely to get by using a larger frame size in VS isn't going to be overwhelming.

Regards
Ian

[lata]

Hi Ian

Your image is 9600 x 5400px, thats 16:9 ratio and should fit to the widescreen frame.

For HD the frame is 1920 x 1080 so any image larger is a bonus allowing you to zoom in should in theory keep the quality.

What are you intending to make, if its HD disc or for the internet then render to Bluray or Avchd, use Frame Based which should help with quality. Try the Blu-ray H.264 (1920x1080P) option.

By the way did you notice any difference when you disabled Anti flickering filter?

[Rawcoll]

For HD the frame is 1920 x 1080 so any image larger is a bonus allowing you to zoom in should in theory keep the quality.

Well that was what I'd hoped, and which is why I created the large size file in the first place, but I'm not sure that VS uses the full size image. It doesn't give that impression. Now I'm getting confused, because my project properties gives 720 x 576, and I'm not sure now how to get a higher resolution. I think I need to go back to the book

By the way did you notice any difference when you disabled Anti flickering filter?

Can't say that I did (and I switched off the feature before pulling the image into the track).

What are you intending to make, if its HD disc or for the internet then render to Bluray or Avchd, use Frame Based which should help with quality. Try the Blu-ray H.264 (1920x1080P) option.

It's nothing special; it'll end up on a DVD. But I would like to at least be able to read the town names. May be I shall have to import some images of the already zoomed-in map as an alternative.

Regards
Ian

[lata]

Hi Ian

Can you e-mail the image, i would be willing to have a look
View my Quick Guide for address.

don’t think i would get any better quality than you are, but at least would know just how good it gets.

Project properties

Settings - Project Properties
Type as Microsoft Avi
Options
Compression type to Microsoft Video
General tab-User define frame size to 1920 x 1080

---------------

Another option you could try is to convert to video first then apply zoom?

Add the image to timeline (no zoom) then Share create Video AVCHD (1920x1080P)

Add video to timeline apply zoom?

[Rawcoll]

Hi Trevor

The image as it stands is too big to email (150 meg tif or 30 meg jpeg); I could lower the quality but that might defeat the object.

I tried using those project settings but it didn't change things a lot. I admit I'm using something like a 6x zoom so I can't expect too much. I must say though that even the image prior to zooming doesn't look too great.

To be honest I think I am expecting too much, being accustomed to the resolutions available for still imaging. If I resize my original image down to 1920 the image is OK, but if I drop down to 1080 the appearance is not what I'd hope for, and if I resize to 720 then it really is too poor for my needs. [Edit: Having said that, even a zoom on the original image of x7 yields an image ~ 1300 px wide, which is OK resized to 720px. The salient thing here is that the zoom needs to operate on the original file.] Expectations need to be readjusted I think!

This also raises another issue, that as a beginner in all things video when I set the project properties to your suggestion I really have no idea what I'm doing or why! I had a brief look at your website and it doesn't appear to cover the issues, and nor does Marc Bech's book. What I need is a guide to take me through all the available settings, explain the meanings of terms, and the implications of using particular settings. Can you suggest where I might find all this in one hit please?

Many thanks
Ian

[Rawcoll]

Hi Trevor

Just uploaded the jpeg to skydrive. My guess is that you should have received an email to that effect (haven't used it before!)

Regards
Ian

[Rawcoll]

Just to provide some visual indication of my concerns, here is a screen shot of the pan & zoom interface. This represents a zoom of x5 which produces, on the original image, a crop of ~1920px wide. You can see that the result of the zoom is illegible, and unfortunately this is as good as it gets, because it is much the same after rendering.

Below is a similar x5 crop of the original image, again ~1920px wide:

As you see, the quality of the image is fine, which leads me to suspect that the Pan & Zoom effect operates not on the original image but one resized to the delivered format.

Or am I doing something wrong or is a setting incorrect somewhere along the line? Or is this what I must expect?

Regards
Ian

[lata]

Hi Ian

I think you are understanding this correctly.
Your large image 9600 x 5400 is literally being stripped of its pixels by Video Studio eventually to the video frame size, for HD 1920 x 1080. Then you zoom in further.

We do however advise that we use images larger than the frame size to retain the quality when zooming in, however this does not seem to make much difference with your images. I just wonder if we have that wrong?

I have e-mailed a VSP using Picture In Picture, its one option to be explored?

You should also look at the RotoPen filter option to draw paths across the image. Maybe tracing the journey.
Not used it that much but makes quite interesting effects

[Rawcoll]

Trevor, thanks very much for your continued interest and advice.

Your large image 9600 x 5400 is literally being stripped of its pixels by Video Studio eventually to the video frame size, for HD 1920 x 1080. Then you zoom in further.

A bit of a shame really. Considering that whilst rendering a project the editing is applied to the original video files (I assume?), one would have thought that this would have applied to all other input files. Certainly from a quality perspective. Oh well, there's more than one way to ..... And I like your PiP approach; I'll need to look further into the details of that.

I have tinkered with the Rotopen filter and it worked quite well, and I had planned on using it here. Maybe still will. The only thing to note is that once the 'journey' is finished everything disappears, so it's necessary to take a snapshot and append it to the end of the clip.

Regards
Ian

[david1939]

Just been doing some digging into my archives as I did this same thing successfully with a map several years ago. Simple old-fashioned plain vanilla 720x480 project 4:3 aspect ratio. The map image was 2128 x 2904 (digitised at 600 pixels/inch). I put the map in the timeline and used the Pan&Zoom tool in the image attributes window -- zooming in did not lose detail at all, looks just like zooming in with Photoshop. I just now experimented using the video pan&zoom filter instead -- that DOES give loss of resolution upon zooming. Is this what is causing the problem?

[Rawcoll]

Hi David

That's interesting. If I remember correctly I tried both ways and it didn't seem to make any difference, but my memory is a bit blurry now. I'll have another look when I next try to attack video editing! What zoom ratio were you using? I'm looking for a 5 or 6 times zoom. And were the differences only visible after you rendered the project, or was it clear just from the preview?

I'm approaching the problem in a different way now, using picture-in-picture.

Regards
Ian

[david1939]

Hi Ian:

The zoom was about 5 (5.27 to be exact!). I mis-spoke, the Pan & Zoom is on the Photo tab which shows up when you select the photo in the timeline. The difference in resolution upon zooming between this and the video filter is obvious in the preview window when you are editing, even in the Pan & Zoom customizing window. I've just tried to attach the VSP file, but it won't let me do it .

David

[Rawcoll]

Hi David

Just had to check it out , though I'm not sure how much more my eyes can take. I've been working on this on and off all day.

As I thought, whichever way I approach it I get the same result, though interestingly the filter is entitled "video pan and zoom" whereas the photo tab brings up just "pan and zoom", though the interfaces are identical.

Could this be a version difference: I'm on v5?

Ian