Pan & Zoom and image resolution

[david1939]

Strange! . I'm currently on X4, but the original was created back in 2007, think I was using 10+ then.

[Rawcoll]

Indeed. What happens if you try it both ways with v4?

[david1939]

Could also be that I wasn't using HD or new-fangled stuff.

[david1939]

That's what I experimented with just now using X4. Also just tried it out on a totally new project, this time of a wedding photo and panned & zoomed onto the bridal couple and zoomed out again. No loss of resolution using the photo pan&zoom feature (beyond what was present in the original photo). Again, I'm just using plain vanilla project settings.

[Rawcoll]

That is strange! However, I'm a little wary of interpretting the result from a normal photo; nothing like a map with text of all sizes to test to destruction! There is no doubt in my mind that with my system at least it doesn't work, because the text rapidly becomes indecipherable (and not like zooming in Photoshop as you had previously found). I wonder what the difference is? And whether it is just the different project parameters?

Ian

[canuck]

That is strange! However, I'm a little wary of interpretting the result from a normal photo; nothing like a map with text of all sizes to test to destruction! There is no doubt in my mind that with my system at least it doesn't work, because the text rapidly becomes indecipherable (and not like zooming in Photoshop as you had previously found). I wonder what the difference is? And whether it is just the different project parameters?

Ian

Can you upload the map file you are using to a free site from where others could download and play around with it?

[david1939]

I would also be happy to upload my VSP and map file which seem to work well. Um, directions please about free sites -- never used them before.

David

[canuck]

Two free sites that I have used are:

www.up4down.com
and
www.4shared.com

Both sites require that you register before you can upload.

[lata]

Hi Ian

juist catching up with this post.

The map image is 9600px x 5400px

The frame size of a HD video is 1920 x 1080, and if you were working in HD that is the size that your image/video will use.
If you are working with Standard definition then the frame size would be 1024 x 576 for Pal. (Square Pixels)

Place the image on the top timeline, switch to project playback, choose Edit - Take a Snap Shot.
that is the size of the image after VS has rendered it as standard deffinition.

If you were to crop the large image into sections at 1920 x 1080, use photoshop the image quality would be good.

I dont have a solution in using the large image and keeping quality.
The best I could do was to crop to 1920, 8 of these would cover the main image, then use P-in-P

What about making a montage all 8 images on one frame?

Ian I have uploaded the images to 4 Shared for others to test, best if we all use the same beast, hope you don't mind

http://www.4shared.com/zip/lsujgBVw/map ... furl=d1url

[Rawcoll]

Hi Trevor

Had other things to do today, hence a late return to the issue. Thanks for your post, and I'm happy for the image to be available.

I think the picture in picture approach is a good one, and at least I can guarantee a decent result. I will go with that even if a solution for P&Z is found.

I'm intrigued by David's result, particularly the fact that there appears to be a difference between the P&Z filter and the P&Z photo interface. Certainly I've not found any difference in results between the two. Could this be a difference between X4 and X5? Moot point for me in any case; I have X5. I'd be interested to try David's VSP and map image.

Ian

[lata]

Hi

I think the major difference is the size of your image, its big, very big at 9600 px wide good quality.
David's is a mere baby at 2904px, and using 4:3 ratio or there-abouts.
Would be good to know if David and others can maintain the quality......

I guess you have more to lose, pixel wise. Its all about detail and your image is certainly full of that.
Using a segment 1920 x 1080 gives better quality but then you dont need to zoom in that far if at all.

By the way keep the main body of your image within the safe area, thats the rectangle you see when viewing the overlay track, anything outside this may not show when viewed on the TV due to OverScan.
Not normally noticeable especially when viewing video, but images are a different matter. hate for you to have to do the settings cos you lose some detail around the edges.

[Rawcoll]

Trevor, thanks, noted.

On a side issue I've used the site's PM system, and although it told me I had sent a message, it seems to remain in the 'outbox' rather than be in the 'sent' folder. Is that normal?

Ian

[david1939]

I hope I've uploaded a zip file to 4shared. It contains a vsp file and an image file of the map.

http://www.4shared.com/zip/m0sTsJMz/Taormina_map_.htm

[lata]

Hi Ian

The pm remains in outbox till the recipient logs on to the forum.

David

yes I have been able to download the zip folder.
Its going to be tomorrow before I can look at it, its time to turn off this machine.

[canuck]

Hi Trevor

Had other things to do today, hence a late return to the issue. Thanks for your post, and I'm happy for the image to be available.

I think the picture in picture approach is a good one, and at least I can guarantee a decent result. I will go with that even if a solution for P&Z is found.

I'm intrigued by David's result, particularly the fact that there appears to be a difference between the P&Z filter and the P&Z photo interface. Certainly I've not found any difference in results between the two. Could this be a difference between X4 and X5? Moot point for me in any case; I have X5. I'd be interested to try David's VSP and map image.

Ian

Ian,

I just tried the P&Z filter and the P&Z photo interface on the map file in both X4 and X5. For me there is the same deterioration in both cases.

Using Davids VSP I get good results.

As an aside, I also use Roxio Creator 2012 (which is now a Corel product) and I tried the P&Z on the map image in that program and I got excellent results.