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
    May 20, 2011 4:08 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Hello. I'm creating a project in Adobe Premier using still images only. All the images I scanned are 4" x 6" and are 200 dpi. In the Adobe Premier project, they are getting cut off. When I go back into Photoshop, and re-size them to 72 dpi, they aren't cut off as much, but still a little bit. Certainly I'm not supposed to use an even lower resolution than that! Given that the help menu says it can support 4096 by 4096 pixels, what is wrong? Even when I look at my project in full screen mode, the images are cut off. I also tried the "fit" drop down menu from the preview screen, and I've selected "fit." The only way my images fit is if I select 20% or some such. Surely this can't be correct - an image that's only 4" by 6", at only 72 dpi, and 20% of that? Please help. Thanks so much.

    - Mona

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 20, 2011 5:14 PM   in reply to monagraphicdesign

    When you go into Photoshop, use the CROP tool instead of scaling or IMAGE SIZE

     

    Set the crop dimensions to match your sequence pixel dimensions.  For example, If you are doing NTSC DV, set the crop to 720 px by 480 px.  If you use pixels, the resolution textbox is ignore.  Use the crop tool on your image and same the resized image under a new name (to preserve your original). 

     

    Simlarly, if you are creating stills in photoshop, when you click on NEW, select VIDEO, and then select the video preset that matches your timeline--this will set pixel dimensions and pixel aspect ratio for you.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 21, 2011 10:19 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Image size is problematic if the proportions of the original image (eg 5 x 7)  don't match the proportions of the timeline (eg 1440 x 1081).

     

    Although the image size dialog does directly given the user the option of choosing the scaling algorithm, the user can set the default scaling algorithm in the EDIT PREFERENCES GENERAL dialog.  Its my understanding that this preference is used for all scaling unless overridden.

     

    What I usually do is the adjust the pixel ratio of the original before I do the crop.  I have the sequence recorded in a Photoshop action.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 24, 2011 4:01 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thanks for this long thread!

     

    It explains EXACTLY what I need to know with my new Sony digital camera's images and mixing with videos in CS5.5.

     

    Thanks!!!!!!!!!

     

    Petey

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 25, 2011 8:59 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thanks Hunt,

     

    Funny, each time I get new camera equipment or software upgrades,  my workflow is always changing.  However, I can honestly say that using PS to resize my vacation shots and using some in PP5.5 is better than ever.

     

    Gotta run,

     

    Petey

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jun 26, 2011 6:44 PM   in reply to P_Forrest

    I go way back with this thread and wanted to say thanks to Bill and all the others for such great info, I follow the thread and have applied many of the ideas and suggestions, Adobe should be proud of such a group as you folks, keep up the good work and thanks for your time!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 3, 2011 11:57 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    I certainly agree with the thanks--Bill has been terrifically helpful with Elements and with Premiere Pro. I just want to point out a problem I have with the two part Scaling Video Tutorial above. Most of us are shooting 3:2 aspect ratio (and some at 4:3). If you're going to scale ahead of time, you're going to want to choose your crop--after all you've taken all that time composing the image! Then you can use image processor. So there will be another step if you want to eliminate the black edges. And in addition, I don't know exactly whether and how I'll zoom and pan until I have everything in the timeline, and until I see how one image will relate to another--for example, I don't want to zoom in, then out, then in, etc. in successive images. So by putting larger unscaled images into the timeline leaves maximum flexibility for creativity--assuming, of course, that your computer can handle the scaling--which many of the 64 bit, Mercury Playback, large RAM computers can.

     

    kdoc

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2011 11:40 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Hunt,

     

    I appreciate all the info you (and the other forum users) put together.

    However I have one question I couldn't find the answer to:

     

    Can you tell me the maximum dimensions PrE is cabable of importing?

     

    I cannot use my panoramic pictures, they fail to import to PrE 9.

    I want to pan horizontally accross the image, e.g. across a picture that is 10000x3700.

     

    Also, you mentioned earlier that you use After Effects for editing panoramic pictures, but I don't have that program.

    Any suggestions what my workflow should be?

     

    Thanks!

     

    Nils

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 22, 2011 7:35 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thank you Bill, yes very interesting and helpful, I came here after seeing you in "scaling to frame" discussion and finding this post.

     

    In my case which is really a slide show I like the full size pic. as I animate all the pics. (Perhaps overdoing it! But I hate the still position to the next pic.). I have used action to resize for the web and email and love it when I don't make any mistake with source, destination and so force. I have had accidents and learned to work on a duplicate folder!

     

    One think I saw you mentioned was saving as .psd, I kind of understand it's a better quality than .jpg but I tried to avoid it probably for the wrong reason that is I seem to remember it can't be previewed in Widows photo viewer and I find this very frustrating. Is it a problem for you? Or you have already re labeled all your photos b4 using psd save.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 23, 2011 5:00 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    So what do you use to see your photo (.psd) within your folder?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 23, 2011 4:55 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Oh I forgot about adobe bridge, I put up with the icon display in project it's not the best for a story board but my use in minimal and I try to keep it as simple as possible. (W7, PP, Photoshop and authoring with Encore!) I've avoided 3rd party pgr. I know that irfan view is very popular... I might start fund raising for an agreement between Adobe and MS!  Thanks MM

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Nov 23, 2011 5:00 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thanks for that info Hunt, re:  not being able to preview PSD in Windows.  That has annoyed me the past few years and I didn't know why I could see them.

     

    I use the Bridge as well, and especially the MINI-BRIDGE right inside Photoshop CS55.   That really helps.

     

    cheerio!

     

    Petey

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Dec 15, 2011 11:39 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Bill,

     

    Thanks for your original post and all your follow ups, it's very helpful.

     

    I'm still confused about pixel aspect ratio.  You say you resize in photoshop and use a pixel aspect ratio of 0.9.  How can you do this without opening a new file with the NTSC preset and pasting the image in?  I saw in another thread that someone resized their images from 720x540 to 720x480 - is this essentially the same thing as using a file with the different PAR?

     

    Thanks!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 7, 2012 6:10 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    I just got referred once more to your awesome work  after being shocked to find one of my timeline of stills was over 11gb. -  I thought I needed to keep my jpg to their maximum size as I'm a little obsessed with animation zoom in out vertical and horizontal pan and rotation! I see you often mention 1000x720 for your format ( down under we've got PAL) for panning, doesn't this interfere with the proportion?  With vertical panning I often zoom in seriously to fill the frame then perhaps triple the duration. But I seem to understand you don't think all this manipulation in PP (cs4) is very good for the quality and I know why as I do loose a lot of quality on the finer details!

     

    I'm very much of an amateur and don't even have (mine or others) camera shooting raws!

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 30, 2012 7:02 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Bill, I have read some of these post and must say you have done a fantastic job.  I am rather new at this so please bear with me.  I am doing a project for my father-in-law that has 45 tapes that I have captured.  I am creating a Blue-ray video of some of the events, namely of all the vacations and all the Christmas clips.  For the Christmas video, I have pictures as well.  They are JPEG files.  1260x1920.  After importing all of them, I found that I had to shrink them down yo about 33% to properly view them.   That was going to be a lot of work for over 100 pictures.  So I found your post on this forum.  I ran all the pictures through PS Image Processor at 720x480 as a PSD file.  Only took less than a minute.  Thanks, that was a big time saver.  Imported them and now the pictures fit perfectly in the height, but the width is a bit shy.  If I scale it to 103% they fit well.   So now I have to scale over 100 pictures.  Did I do something wrong?  Should I have taken the ratio of 1260/1920 and multiplied that by 720 to get my new width? 

     

    Another question, if you will take two at one time.  My father-in-law says my vacation video makes everyone look wide(fatter).   He is watching my movie from a Blue-ray on a HD wide screen TV.   I set the sequence to DV NTSC  729x480  with the PAR of ".91"   The video looked fine on my output monitor from what I can tell.  Used 4:3 as that was what I thought SD was all about.   Since it is going to be viewed on a HD wide screen, should I have set the sequence to 16:9?   I tried that and the video looked small on the output screen.  What I am trying to figure out is how to take SD clips at 720x480 and make them look natural in a HD wide screen TV.  My father-in-law says every time he watch the video, he changes the TV to normal width from wide screen.  He says that works, however, it is a pain to always change  the TV to watch my movies.  Does this make sense?

     

    Duane

     

    PS, did I read that you were here in Phoenix recently?

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 24, 2012 2:00 AM   in reply to DTwo22

    This last post was emailed to me, since I was part of the discussion at some stages. I have not touched this kind of work for months now. but picked a couple of things out of that post that I like to comment on. I did not think SD means a particular format but rather as it usually stands for, "standard definition" that is with much less pixel information that would be in HD or High definition that owes its quality to increased number of picture information. But I though you could use SD or HD in 4:3 or wide screen as you wish but with regards to these settings (ie 4:3, 9:16) in  the original filming.  As adjusting the TV ratio to watch a particular dvd doesn't seem to require such an effort. I guess we are getting so spoilt these days that any little inconvenience tends to be an issue and any improvement through speed of progress tends to get us to take it all for granted. Yet we still enjoy watching programs like "Survivors" and the getting back to difficult times.

    I don't know about PE but in PP you can actually decide what output you want, Standard (as in screen size 4:3) or wide screen.

     

    I have tried to export original 4:3 format in 16:9 to fill my wide screen tv but the visual result was awful. So put it back to the original format.

     

    Message was edited by: Michelmnr ( I tried to clean up my post!)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 11:07 AM   in reply to klfi

    Hi Bill,

     

    Would you be able to provide me with detailed steps on the resizing? I have experience with Photoshop but this is my first time making a DVD slide show. I had completed my Slide Show with Photoshop and Premiere Elements. Some of the images were pixilated.

     

    I took all the images that I had in my slide show and put them in a separate folder with a sub-folder as per your instructions. I did not see an Automate button, but I did find a process multiple files option. Could you provide me steps on the resizing because I am not sure as to what you mean by 720 by 480 because there are several options under the image size section. Also I could not find the PAR of 0.9 in the process multiple files menu either.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jul 22, 2012 11:10 AM   in reply to chris_snyder

    Also, some of these photo's have been edited in Photoshop already, will that make a difference?

     

    When I previewed the slide show, it was clear but once it was on the DVD was when I had the pixilated photo's. I have tried a few other options but nothing has corrected all of them.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 30, 2013 9:44 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Hi Bill, nice to sit at the feet of the master again!

     

    I'm back to resizing images and naturally I wanted to consult your superb approach to this workflow!

     

    I had saved several of your comments on this topic but, apparently after a certain amount of time, Adobe deletes these.

     

    I recall you stating that you tended to save this still image resizing part of the video editing workflow until the end, to minimize the impact it has on processing speed and the like.

     

    Am I correct on that?  If so, did you just insert placeholders into your PrPro timeline that would later be replaced by images where the pillarboxing had been removed?

     

    Also, my PrPro project settings are currently set for 1920 x 1080, but I would like to use the Ken Burns effect on images larger than this.

     

    Is there any advantage to changing the settings of my project to accommodate these larger still images, or do the negative tradeoffs counsel against it?

     

    Thanks!  

     

    matt dubuque

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Jan 31, 2013 6:16 PM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thanks Bill, I've archived this!

     

    I was also wondering, I recall you stating that one way you coped with the substantially increased overhead associated with very large photos by not inserting them into the timeline until as late as possible.  

     

    Instead, you simply put black video "placeholders" where the very large images would go and only replaced those placeholders on the timeline with the actual large fotos at the last possible moment.

     

    Is my recollection about that correct?

     

    thanks, as always, for your world class help and I hope your team does well in the Super Bowl....   matt

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Feb 4, 2013 8:04 AM   in reply to Bill Hunt

    Thanks Bill, as always!

     

    Sorry for the delay in responding, I've simply been incorporating the large images into my workflows as you typically do and so far everything seems OK.  I just now had a chance to circle back.

     

    Hope all is well in your neck of the woods.

     

    Matt

     
    |
    Mark as:
Actions

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (5)