Image degradation (bug)?

[Random Nobody]

Can anyone confirm this bug please. Start a new project with 1920x1080 resolution. Load any larger image i.e. from your camera something like 6000x4000 into VideoStudio Backgrounds.

Apply Auto Pan & Zoom thing.

Once you zoom IN into 1:1 of original image, does your picture become heavily degraded in quality and resolution? It happens in both the preview window and rendered result.

Here is a cropped section of my original image:


Once i import this 6000x4000 picture into X10 (Ultimate) and zoom into section that is roughly the size of 1920 pixels i get this:

Notice: this is a cropped portion of 1920 pixel wide image, don't want to fill up the thread with large images.

Text is barely readable, JPEG type compression artefacts everywhere. This makes no sense.

Because IF the software really zoomed into 6000x4000 size picture, than this part that is roughly 1920 pixels wide should be razor sharp. Artefacts should start appearing once we go BEYOND 1:1 image size. Because the picture that i use is 6000x4000 pixels and the video resolution is 1920 pixels wide, therefore anything from 6000 pixels down to 1920 pixels is technically speaking a CROP function. How can a crop contain artefacts? This makes no sense.

Unless the image was previously, for some unknown reason resized down to 1920 pixels and compressed with JPEG, all that BEFORE any processing has ever been done. Why would someone do that? It completely cripples down the quality of a video. Any serious video editing software should not have such limitation. Particularly not in 2017 with average system running quad i7, 16gigs of RAM and a 1TB disk to store it all up. 2007 is long gone. Time to move on?



UPDATE (more images and better explanation):

Here is another example image that should show what is being discussed in here:



Once i zoom in with VideoStudio i get this:

(crop)

However, original crop from the image at 1:1 looks like this:

(crop)

[canuck]

Before anyone can duplicate your so-called "bug" you will have to give a lot more information on exactly what steps your are taking. All you have said is that you applied the "Auto Pan & Zoom thing" whatever that is. Some details please!

[lata]

Hi

First the timelines do not always represent the full quality of the finished rendered video.
Playing the project looks a little better than the still preview screen.
However

A HD video project uses a frame size of 1920 x 1080, when adding a large image only 1920 x 1080 can be displayed, effectively pixels are dropped reducing quality.
If you increase the project properties frame size to 4 K (4096 x 2160) then the image should look better, allowing the program to display more pixels. If that makes sense.

So what are you intending to make?
if HD video for the internet then use images having the same frame size, (if intending to zoom in I would increase sizes by 50%).
Unfortunately zooming in will lose quality, by creating a new quality image of the zoom area using an image editor may help.
Zoom in then replace zoom area with new quality image, a workround I know.

(a 1920 x 1080 image will look better than a 6000 x 4000 image) hmmm

Can you report this problem to Corel Support, the more people complain the sooner they will fix this anomaly.

Oh go to F6 preferences and set Resampling Quality to best, may improve things?

[Random Nobody]

All you have said is that you applied the "Auto Pan & Zoom thing" whatever that is. Some details please!

Basically i just did what is explained in here: http://help.videostudiopro.com/videostu ... fects.html

Here is a better test image to you can try: https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BxPfz ... kpRY3NvQVk

View it in 1:1 zoom (ie. with Irfan view). You can clearly read the text. Yes?

Start a new project, i.e. with Bluray settings 1920x1080. Drag this test image onto timeline. Now apply Pan & Zoom function. Click the clip again and under Photo tab click on Pan&Zoom Customize. For testing purpose set zoom from 310% to 600%. Can you read any text? At 310% the image ratio should be roughly 1:1 to original (for a 1920 pixel wide video). The text should be visible at 310% and start blurring out when going above that . But in return all we get is some garbled noise.



EDIT: ok after some more research it seems that no matter how good quality image you load in, Videostudio downsamples everything and then applies JPG compression on top of that. How nice of them. Taking care of our precious drive space in the year of 2017, where average system weights around 1TB of disk space. I can't believe this is real. Seems like someone got stuck in 2007.

[Random Nobody]

By the way, the whole point of Ken Burns effect is completely lost if you don't let ppl zoom into their images past native movie resolution. Because the result will always be ugly garbled image, particularly after it slaps that jpg compression on top of it.

Still not sure should i report this to Corel, simply because there are way too many alternative movie editors out there. And life is to short. We actually bought this copy for our office and some basic presentation. Foolishly i bought an extra licence for my home, before actually trying all the things in the office. So please pardon my frustration. Anyway, rant off.

[lata]

By the way, the whole point of Ken Burns effect is completely lost if you don't let ppl zoom into their images past native movie resolution. Because the result will always be ugly garbled image, particularly after it slaps that jpg compression on top of it.

Still not sure should i report this to Corel, simply because there are way too many alternative movie editors out there. And life is to short. We actually bought this copy for our office and some basic presentation. Foolishly i bought an extra licence for my home, before actually trying all the things in the office. So please pardon my frustration. Anyway, rant off.

Did you read my reply above.......?

[Random Nobody]

So what are you intending to make? .

Just a normal HD video ie. 1920x1080 video.

if HD video for the internet then use images having the same frame size, (if intending to zoom in I would increase sizes by 50%).

Hmmm... Image is already 6000x4000. Not sure i should gain anything by resizing.

Zoom in then replace zoom area with new quality image, a workround I know.

This will just crossfade between two images (wide and zoomed portion). This is not Ken Burns effect.

Technically speaking Yes i could manually animate zoom in effect by cropping original photo and loading it frame by frame until i zoom deep enough. But let's be honest, that would take hours and hours of work. And all that for one single image. Suppose i have 40 more.

Oh go to F6 preferences and set Resampling Quality to best, may improve things?

Yes I did try this right away. Same problem.

[lata]

Hi

What format is your original image, I had assumed a Jpeg but your google drive sample shows a Png?

Are you able to provide the original image showing in your first post.

[Random Nobody]

What format is your original image

TIFF

[canuck]

By the way i re edited my original post and added some extra data to make testing as easy as possible.

Here is another example image that should show what is being discussed in here:

Why not give us the original image to look at?

[Random Nobody]

Why not give us the original image to look at?

I have already submitted test image in my second post. You are free to download it and test as much as you wish.

[lata]

Hi

That sample image is a PNG, you said the original image was Tiff?

Do you get better results using Jpeg in Video Studio?

[Random Nobody]

Hi

That sample image is a PNG, you said the original image was Tiff?

I zoomed in a TIFF and got garbled result. I provided a PNG for download and got garbled result. Mind you, both are loseless formats. JPEG is lossy which is why i don't use it. It damages image quality by default.

EDIT: sorry lata!! It seems that imgur was down! I actually submit a PNG example as well. It's in the post above, but for some reason not all images were shown. Now they are. My point is, the problem is present on any image format. TIFF and PNG.

EDIT: to make things on the safe side, i did actually load the 6000x4000 JPEG image. Same issue is present.

[asik1]

Random, it's very ez to see the crapy work of VS in that aspect.
Just load your 6Kx4K image to an overlay track and set it to original size
Now you will see just a portion of it as set by your project. (you can move it with the mouse on the preview screen, to any portion you want to test)
Now just render it. is it crapy enough? no pan zoom needed.

** Setting re sample from good to best in preferences don't effect much.

Here a sample jpg
https://www.reddit.com/r/EarthPorn/comm ... 6000x4000/

[lata]

Hi

Its not a matter of whether the Tiff is loseless format but how Video Studio handles images.
Besides if png was loseless why the poor results when viewing, I placed that file in PSP and PS and got the garbled view you describe, so if an image editor cannot view the file how do you expect a Video Editor to see them.

Was the tiff image taken by a camera or converted to tiff using an image editor?

Can you provide the original image as taken by the camera.