Skip navigation

Large Still Images into PE - One Workflow

Jun 19, 2009 8:04 AM

Tags: #premiere #large #batch #actions #scale #automate #still_images
  Latest reply: Bill Hunt, Feb 12, 2014 3:02 PM
Replies 1 2 3 4 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 10, 2010 1:20 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Hi Bill,

    I have a question about the Presets for my slide show. I want the best quality images possible (obviously).

    Everyone in the group that I am making the slide show for has a LCD HD TV but most have a DVD player not a blue ray or HD player.

     

    Do DVD players have a size constraint for play back?

     

    Should my preset then be?

    DV - NTSC Widescreen 48KHZ Frame size 720h 480v pixel Aspect ratio 16:9 (1.2121) or

    HDV > HDV 1080i30 960i)  Frame size: 1440h 1080v (1.3333) Frame rate: 29.97 frames/second Pixel Aspect Ratio: HD Anamorphic 1080 (1.333)

    Digital SLR > 1080p > 1080p30 @ 29.97 Frame size: 1920h 1080v (1.0000)  Frame rate: 29.97 frames/second Pixel Aspect Ratio: Square Pixels (1.0)

     

    If i make it in the Digital SLR format witch appears to be the best quality can I export it to lesser quality such as the the DV NTSC?

     

    I also wanted to confirm that you bring in your photo's into Premiere  in PSD format. I am double checking as there was lots of discussion on the topic and the JPG seems to be lots smaller . I processed the JPG from the original PSD and saved it at Maximum 12

    Original RAW 10.78 MB Dimensions 3888 X 2592 

                JPG    6.71 MB Dimensions 3888 X 2592

                PSD  57.70 MB Dimensions 3888 X 2592

    Resised Frome the PSD

                JPG     1.74 MB Dimensions Resized1920X1080

                PSD     11.9 MB Dimensions Resized1920X1080

     

    I am new to adobe premiere I really appreciate the help.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Calculating status...
    Dec 3, 2010 2:53 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Bill, another question...

     

    My project is for DV NTSC Widescreen. Will I have to select 4:3 for the image re-sizing to work in Premiere.

     

    So far, I have opened the large files in Photoshop Elements and saved for the Web, selecting a low or medium quality JPG. Some of the images did fine in the final avi file, but some did not.

     

    I suppose that saving the jpeg for the web didnt really downsize the pixels, it just made the file smaller in terms of KBs. Correct?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2010 10:44 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    When you speak of the processing load--does that occur just  the one time you set it up, or does it occur every time you play it, while working on the project and after it's in its final form?

     

    And concerning the prior  question, bringing the  image down  to 1920 by 1080, when you're editing at that size: If you plan to pan or zoom, why would you not bring it to a larger size: so that you can show a magnified partial view with good image quality? What I'm wondering is: I could make the file larger in PS, and then downsize while in PrP when I want to show the entire image; Or, I could make it 1920 x 1080 in PS, and upsize in PrP. Hunt: do you have any idea which would produce the best overall image quality in both the zoomed and full image?

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 9, 2010 2:26 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Hunt: Thanks very much for all this help.

     

    I follow you in theory, but not in practice. How the devil do you know what you'll need? Let's say you've got this full image which is initially 3888 x 2995 or something like that. And you're editing at 1920 x 1080. OK, you  can  bring it down to 1620 x 1080 (3:2 aspect) uncropped, or crop it to 1920 x 1080--and that can be your full size image.

     

    But what if I plan to zoom/pan--how do you determine what size and crop to bring over from PS to Premiere?

     

    And also: Is that extra effort in PS worth the time? Do you really get a better quality image? After all, with more powerful computers, 64 bits, more RAM now, Mercury Playback, etc. does it matter image quality wise and/or does PrP really need that help or can it now (CS5) handle the  "load"?

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 13, 2010 11:09 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Hi Hunt: sorry to bother you, but could you please answer the question I posed after your last post.

    I'm just wondering how you  make the calculation so that you decide exactly how you'll crop and resize a given image?

     

    Thank you

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 18, 2010 1:02 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    I've read through this whole post, and I appreciate the hard work. But I'm having a hard time understanding how I should scan my photos for a SD widescreen slide show with pan and zoom effects. What should the pixels be set at? Thanks.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 20, 2010 12:16 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thanks Hunt,

     

    I experimented for 1/2 day with this in Premiere Pro CS5, which works with the new Mercury Playback Engine and speeds things up, even with large images. Here's what I discovered editing for a 720p (i.e. the vertical frame will be 720 pixels).

     

    If I leave my Canon 40D RAW image its original size (3888x2592), perhaps with about amount 50 radius 1.0 in Smart Sharpening in Photoshop, I can either upsize or downsize and get excellent image quality. For example, Scaling down to 28% makes fit vertically. And scaling up to 250 or even higher gives me a good zoom and/or pan. Both with good image quality. This way I don't have to make calculations with every image or decide ahead of time what I want to do in premiere. I don't know whether I'll clog my system eventually with these large sizes?

     

    Or alternatively, I can downsize the 2592 dimension (landscape image)  in Photoshop to a 1440 vertical--that will work fine with panning; but you lose quality if you wish to zoom.

     

    One problem or bug I'd like to ask about. If I resize by dragging in the Program Panel, the image comes out blurry. What I have to do then is downsize in the Effects Panel, click outside the white bounding box, and the blur disappears--then upsize again from the Effects Panel. What's with that? Why does clicking the actual image in Program Panel and/or dragging the white bounding box cause blurriness.

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 20, 2010 2:24 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thanks Hunt:

     

    This leaves three questions, if you have a line into Adobe (or if you work for Adobe?):

     

    1. Is the scaling interpolation smart enough that when you scale down substantially in PrP it uses Bicubic sharper; and when you scale up substantially it uses Bicubic smoother? That would be awesome if it did. lBut anyway, the image looks good on full screen Program playback, so.... why worry!

     

    2. Once you've zoomed/panned, (and assuming the software didn't crash with the larger file sizes), and then you've exported--is the file size kept by the exported product only that of your final resizings, or does it keep the file size you put in from Photoshop (say, 28 M)? To put the question differently, if I import a 28 M psd file, but then only use it at 28%, is the final exported and rendered size which is stored 28 M or smaller?

     

    3. If one were to save the Photoshop file as a jpg file it would be smaller, and less likely to crash PrP. If we then scale up and down, and up and down, etc. experimenting with an optimal scaling and panning, does that deteriorate the image each time you change it (as does opening and changing, and then closing a jpg image generally?

     

    Just  wondering...

     

    Thanks

     

    keith

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 20, 2010 4:39 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    > According to Adobe, MPE allowed them to basically use the same Scaling algorithms from PS, so things really got better.

     

    Actually, with CUDA processing, Premiere Pro CS5 uses a scaling algorithm that is even better than what Photoshop uses.

     

    > I will try to get the word on #1, as I just do not know which of the PS algorithms might be used, and under which circumstances.

     

    Premiere Pro CS5 doesn't use a different algorithm for upscaling versus downscaling. The factors that determine what algorithm is used are 1) whether CUDA processing is being used and 2) whether Maximum Render Quality is chosen. The details are here.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 20, 2010 8:18 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Both responses are very helpful. From this I've (temporarily) decided to neither upsize or downsize in Photoshop--as long as the system isn't freezing; based on your answer Hunt, there would be no point to it. And I'm delighted I'm using CUDA--It looks like I can resize in Premiere without hesitancy and get excellent quality from my still images. I'll stay with not using JPEG's, as has been the case in PS.

     

    But most important, let me say how delighted I am with the responsiveness and clarity of the answers in this forum. One could not ask for more. You know, I almost moved to a Mac, since all the people I knew used Final Cut. I'm delighted I decided against this--Premiere is terrific now, and is overwhelming  FCP as we speak! And the support we're getting is equally wonderful.

     

    Thank you all.

     

    kdoc (Keith)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 24, 2010 12:26 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    I just came upon this link:

    http://library.creativecow.net/harrington_richard/Premiere-Pro_Photosh op-Document/1

    and thought it fit in well with the topic. It's particularly useful if you don't want black borders on your frame (due to the 16:9 aspect ratio of a high def Premiere frame, and the typical 3:2 aspect of many DSLR's). This tecnique is fine for placing an image full view into Premiere. If one plans to zoom/pan, instead of using 720x1280, for example, you might double the dimensions. Frankly, I'm not sure this isn't more trouble than its worth--all of what it does can be done by resizing in PrP now.

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 24, 2010 1:32 PM   in reply to kdoc2

    http://library.creativecow.net/tutorials/adobepremierebasics

     

    For some bizarre reason I can't seem to get a link into this. But if you select and copy the above, and paste it into the browser as a URL, then scroll down to "Need a Photoshop Document" you'll have it. Then you can tell me how I should have gotten that to register correctly here

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 31, 2010 8:42 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Todd (and Hunt), can you tell me something about the deep workings of Premiere. I'm bringing in still images which I intend to pan/zoom--sometimes a little, at times a lot. I'm just bringing in the size that came  off the camera 3888x2592. So in a 720p video, I'm initially seeing a markedly zoomed portion of the image, and the scaling calls that "100%". Is there any difference to Premiere at all whether I handle them:

         a. Down-size, by scaling down to around 28% to see the entire image, and to around 35% or whatever for zooming/panning?    Or...

         b. Scale to Frame Size to begin with, in which case the entire image is called 100% scale by Premiere, and then to pan/zoom I have to upsize to a scale of over 100%.

     

    In effect what I'm asking is whether we're upsizing in one method and downsizing in another, and whether it makes any difference to the overall quality of the images or the ease by which Premiere handles the files?

     

    Thanks

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 31, 2010 11:55 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Actually, while your responses are always very helpful--and very much appreciated--in this case it's not what I'm asking. I'm using a different approach than you, and I put the whole large image into Premiere (3888 x 2592). Then I resize in Premiere--because Todd said the interpolation is so good there, and the computer seems to handle it fine. I'm asking whether it's better or worse or indifferent to start with setting "Scale to Frame Size", and then resize in the Video Effects/Motion Panel, or whether I  should skip "Scale to Frame Size" and do all the resizing using the Effects Panel?

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2011 10:04 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Think of it this way: If you scale the image once and then work with the resized image as a source asset, then you've just spent the time to rescale it once. But if you work with the full original image, you force Premiere Pro to scale the image each time that it's used. Even with a powerful computer, that can be a considerable performance hit. If you're just working with one image, maybe the convenience of just working with the original and scaling on the fly in Premiere Pro is a good tradeoff; but sometimes the balance of benefits tilts the other way.

     

    There's a section in Premiere Pro Help that goes into some detail about these recommendations.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 1, 2011 11:21 PM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Todd, I too appreciate your help and comments, and the excellent reference. But here's what I'm wondering. Let's say that with 80-90% of the images one plans on having at least some movement (panning or zooming). That means that Premiere will always be going from one size or position to at least one more, perhaps two--sometime going from larger to smaller, other times the other way. And you'll be creating in Premiere, so the exact zoom or movement isn't known  ahead of time--it depends on the final order of the images, the rhythm, duration, audio, etc., and all of that is in creative flux.  It seems like you might as well routinely scale to 2 times each frame dimension or so in Photoshop, and just work starting there in Premiere--but avoiding up-resolutioning. What do you think of this approach?

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 2, 2011 12:30 AM   in reply to kdoc2

    There are no hard and fast rules. The goal is to not use a source image that is too large for no good reason. Work with whatever size works best for you under the circumstances. If the image is just a static background plate, make it exactly the size of your frame; if it will be panned across, make it bigger than your frame. But don't bring in 5,000x5,000 pixels when you only need 1920x1080.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 3, 2011 7:50 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

     

    It's getting more and more clear. I'll try and recapitulate: I (we) need to make every effort to not bring more pixels than we will use!! And certainly not a great excess of pixels! And I do understand that everyone does this a little different--"whatever works," so to speak.  I'm also hearing that if one plans on upsampling the original image, for a major zoom, it should be done in Photoshop, according to the link Todd sent--probably because interpolation in Premiere (particularly when GPU acceleration is not available) may not be as good as in Photoshop Bicubic Smoother. (i.e. The article suggests that upsampling in Premiere will result in significant degradation in image quality). Preparing in an image which then becomes around twice the Premiere frame size in each dimension, sRGB; *.psd would probably be a reasonable "batch" action to perform on those images one plans to zoom and/or pan--assuming you don't know exactly how you're going to use the image in Premiere.

     

    Any disagreements? Thanks again, all.

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 3, 2011 8:23 AM   in reply to kdoc2

    >  I'm also hearing that if one plans on upsampling the original image, for a major zoom, it should be done in Photoshop, according to the link Todd sent--probably because interpolation in Premiere (particularly when GPU acceleration is not available) may not be as good as in Photoshop Bicubic Smoother. (i.e. The article suggests that upsampling in Premiere will result in significant degradation in image quality).

     

     

    The scaling available in Premiere Pro CS4 and earlier and Premiere Elements is worse than the scaling available in Photoshop.

     

    The scaling available in Premiere Pro CS5 with CUDA processing is better than the scaling available in Photoshop.

     

    The scaling available in Premiere Pro CS5 without CUDA processing is the same as the scaling available in Photoshop.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 3, 2011 8:35 AM   in reply to Todd_Kopriva

    Great Todd: That nails it down.

     

    kdoc (keith)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 22, 2011 10:45 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Man, there's a lot of detail in this thread. I'll have to read through it a couple of times to gaterh it all in. Thanks for the info.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 24, 2011 12:14 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    > ...the 4096 x 4096 max (that might have changed upward in PrPro CS5, but I cannot remember now).

     

     

    Yes, that's much different now:

    http://blogs.adobe.com/premiereprotraining/2010/07/maximum_dimensions_ in_premiere.html

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 1, 2011 10:35 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    I have become aware that my project is burning up memory and causing frequent out of memory errors.

    I am way down the creation path having used many still images that are 2560 X 1920 pixels and I am wondering what is the best way for me to correct my project situation now. Appears I need some batch software to condense my image sizes.

    My Project Settings currently use 720 X 576 PAL output but maybe I want widescreen format.

    What resolution images are recommended?

     

    I have 6 parts to my project and I am half way through part 2.

     

    If I need to redress all my images then I assume that is going to screw everything I have edited and produced so far.

     

    I guess I could lock away part 1 that I have finished and start afresh using lower resolution still images from now on. So would it be recommended that I park my project that has used large resolution images and start working on new projects which can be merged together later?

     

     

    David

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (5)